Report to the Ranking Minority

Member, Committee on Governmental

Affairs, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

June 2001 DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY

Status of Achieving

Key Outcomes and

Addressing Major

Management

Challenges

GAO-01-823
Page 1 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

June 29, 2001

The Honorable Fred Thompson

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

Dear Senator Thompson:

As you requested, we reviewed the Department of Energy’s (DOE) fiscal

year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan

required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)

to assess the agency’s progress in achieving selected key outcomes that

you identified as important mission areas for the agency.1

 These selected

key outcomes are

• energy systems are secure, competitive, and serve the needs of the public;

• energy use is more efficient and productive, while environmental impacts

are limited;

• contaminated nuclear weapons and research sites are cleaned up;

• national and global nuclear security threats are reduced; and

• science and technology innovations are achieved at reduced costs.

As agreed, using the selected key outcomes for DOE as a framework, we

(1) assessed the progress DOE has made in achieving these outcomes and

the strategies the agency has in place to achieve them; and (2) compared

DOE’s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002

performance plan with the agency’s prior year performance report and

plan for these outcomes. Additionally, we agreed to analyze how DOE

addressed its major management challenges, including the

governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management

and information security, which we and DOE’s Office of Inspector General

(OIG) identified. Appendix I provides detailed information on how DOE

addressed these challenges.

 1

This report is one of a series of reports on the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act

agencies’ fiscal year 2000 performance reports and fiscal year 2002 performance plans.

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Generally, in its fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report,

DOE states that it is making overall progress in achieving its selected key

outcomes while recognizing that, in some areas, more work remains to be

done. However, the performance report does not always effectively

demonstrate the Department’s progress in achieving its key outcomes

because it includes (1) unclear, jargon-laden measures that do not always

support superceding objectives; (2) performance assessments that are

inconsistent with actual performance; (3) objectives with insufficient

performance measures; and (4) a lack of explanation for shortfalls in

performance. In its fiscal year 2002 performance plan, DOE generally

outlines broad, clear strategies for achieving the objectives under the

selected key outcomes. However, DOE does not consistently provide

detailed, specific actions required to achieve some of the outcomes.

Specifically,

• Planned Outcome: Energy Systems Are Secure, Competitive, and Serve the

Needs of the Public. DOE reported continued progress toward achieving

this outcome. However, it is impossible to tell precisely how much

progress has been made because the annual performance goals and

measures included in the report are often unclear and sometimes do not

support their superceding objectives. DOE provides a multitude of

strategies for achieving this outcome for fiscal year 2002 and while in

some cases, these strategies are clear, in most instances the language is

vague and is merely a restatement of the general performance goal.

• Planned Outcome: Energy Use Is More Efficient and Productive, While

Environmental Impacts Are Limited. DOE also reported continued

progress toward achieving this outcome. However, DOE considers this key

outcome as an objective under the outcome discussed above—ensuring

that energy systems are secure, competitive, and serve the needs of the

public. Consequently, many of the concerns—such as lack of clarity—that

we have identified for the prior outcome also apply to this one.

Accordingly, it is difficult to determine what progress DOE has made

toward achieving this outcome and how the Department’s efforts

contributed to this outcome. In contrast to the above outcome, in most

cases, the strategies described for this outcome for fiscal year 2002 are

detailed, clear, and relevant. Moreover, the strategies provide an important

conceptual linkage between the more general strategic objectives and the

annual performance goals.

• Planned Outcome: Contaminated Nuclear Weapons and Research Sites

Are Cleaned Up. DOE generally reported progress toward achieving this

key outcome. Overall, DOE’s cleanup performance goals clearly supported

Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

their respective objectives, were relevant, and were quantified, where

appropriate. However, DOE did not effectively demonstrate progress in

every case. In some cases, the assessment of performance did not match

actual performance; inadequate information was provided for specific

measurement data that appeared questionable; and inadequate

explanations were provided for significant shortfalls in performance.

Generally, DOE provided relevant strategies for fiscal year 2002 for this

outcome. However, DOE did not always highlight known problems with its

strategies and did not always address how it will correct performance

shortfalls from the fiscal year 2000 report for this outcome.

• Planned Outcome: Further Strengthen National Security and Reduce the

Global Danger From Weapons of Mass Destruction. Overall, DOE reported

mixed progress in its efforts to achieve this key outcome. For example,

while DOE was able to certify that the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile

remains safe and reliable, its Stockpile Stewardship Program continued to

have a mixed record in meeting its goals and targets. Similarly, while DOE

reported progress in reducing the global danger from weapons of mass

destruction through its nonproliferation and international safety programs,

it also reported a mixed record for its fissile materials disposition

programs. However, assessing DOE’s progress for this outcome is not

always possible, because in some cases goals and measures are missing

for important efforts, some measures are process-oriented, and some

measures do not clearly link to the relevant strategic objective. For fiscal

year 2002, DOE will continue with many of the strategies that are in place

for fiscal year 2001 for this outcome. However, some key strategies that

should be included under this outcome are missing, such as a strategy with

dedicated objectives and measures for the establishment of the National

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA).

• Planned Outcome: Science and Technology Innovations Are Achieved at

Reduced Costs. DOE reported that it was making progress toward

achieving this key outcome. However, it is impossible to tell precisely how

much progress has been made because annual performance goals and

measures for this outcome vary in clarity and descriptiveness, and the

level of detail in the results sections of the report varies by individual

program, with little consistency among them. DOE’s science and

technology-related strategies in its fiscal year 2002 plan do not specifically

address whether innovations will be achieved at reduced costs. Instead,

the strategies address such topics as leadership, foundations, and break

throughs in the physical sciences; environmental protection and cleanup;

exploring matter and energy at the atomic scale; and providing the
Page 4 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

infrastructure and workforce to support the physical, biological,

environmental, and computational sciences.

DOE’s fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report and fiscal

year 2002 performance plan represent an overall improvement over

previous reports and plans. Specifically, the fiscal year 2000 report

organizes information by departmental decision unit to better track with

the budget, and it includes improved linkages between objectives and

funding. Similarly, the fiscal year 2002 plan includes general performance

goals that are linked to each budgetary decision unit. However, both the

report and the plan continue to have some weaknesses. In particular, the

report does not always provide a clear picture of how much progress has

actually been made, nor does it always outline detailed strategies for

making further progress when targets were not met. In addition, the report

continues to provide minimal information on procedures to validate and

verify performance information. Similarly, the plan does not provide

adequate explanations for changes made to objectives, goals, and

measures, and it often contains vague descriptions, such as “promote” and

“enhance,” for some strategies that make it difficult to get a clear picture

of the Department’s intended performance. Finally, DOE does not disclose

data limitations in either the performance plan or the report for the key

outcomes.

Most of the major management challenges identified by GAO have been

included as departmental challenges in DOE’s fiscal year 2000 report and

fiscal year 2002 plan. However, at the outcome level, DOE’s treatment of

these management challenges varies greatly, and few if any details are

included in the report or plan that explain how much progress DOE has

made in addressing these challenges or how these challenges will be

addressed in the future. For example, in the fiscal year 2002 plan, under

DOE’s science and technology outcome, the importance of the scientific

workforce is addressed as a strategic human capital management

challenge and some targets have been outlined. However, for the other key

outcomes, there are generally no objectives, goals, or measures related to

the strategic human capital management challenge in either the report or

the plan. Similarly, although DOE reports that it is making progress in

improving information security, some of DOE’s performance measures are

process-oriented and do not always provide an assessment of real,

meaningful, and measurable improvements in information security.

Moreover, most of DOE’s performance measures for fiscal year 2002 for

this challenge are still under development.
Page 5 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

We provided a copy of a draft of this report to DOE for review and

comment. DOE officials generally agreed with the information presented

in the report.

GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking,

management, and accountability from activities and processes to the

results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable

information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been

provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA,

annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the

public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs

and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge performance,

(3) the strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals,

and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and validate

performance information. These annual plans, issued soon after

transmittal of the president’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an

agency’s longer term goals and mission and day-to-day activities.2

 Annual

performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which

performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance

reports, due by March 31, represents a new and potentially more

substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity to

assess federal agencies’ actual performance for the prior fiscal year and to

consider what steps are needed to improve performance and reduce costs

in the future.3

DOE’s missions are to foster a reliable and sustainable energy system,

maintain the nation’s nuclear weapons capabilities, clean up the

contamination resulting from prior nuclear weapons activities, and

promote U.S. leadership in science and technology. DOE also works with

the Departments of Defense and State to help prevent the proliferation of

nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. In the post-Cold

War environment, securing U.S. nuclear weapons materials and

information remains vital to U.S. national interests. To carry out its

missions, DOE has been appropriated about $17 billion annually in recent

years and has almost 16,000 federal employees. The Department has more

than 50 major facilities in 35 states. DOE contracts for the management

 2

The fiscal year 2002 performance plan is the fourth of these annual reports under GPRA.

3

The fiscal year 2000 performance report is the second of these annual reports under

GPRA.

Background
Page 6 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

and operation of its major facilities—including its national laboratories,

nuclear weapons production facilities, and those facilities undergoing

environmental cleanup—and has more than 100,000 prime contractor

employees at its facilities. In fiscal year 1999, DOE obligated about

$15.5 billion to contracts. Organizationally, DOE is structured along four

business lines to carry out its four primary functions—Energy Resources,

National Nuclear Security, Environmental Quality, and Science. DOE’s

GPRA-related documents are also organized around these four business

lines.

This section discusses our analysis of DOE’s performance in achieving its

selected key outcomes and the strategies the agency has in place,

particularly strategic human capital management4 and information

technology, for accomplishing these outcomes. In discussing these

outcomes, we provide information from our prior work on the extent to

which the agency has provided assurance that the performance

information it is reporting is credible.

It its fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report, DOE reports

continued progress toward achieving its outcome of ensuring that energy

systems are secure, competitive, and serve the needs of the public—which

is the key outcome under DOE’s Energy Resources business line.

However, while DOE may be making progress toward achieving this

outcome, it is impossible to tell precisely how much progress has been

made based on the information presented in the report. This is because

annual performance goals and measures are often not clear and sometimes

do not seem to support their superceding objectives. For example, for this

outcome DOE presents the strategic objective to “develop alternative

transportation fuels and more efficient vehicles that can reduce year 2010

projected oil imports...by 5 percent.” The Department supports this

objective with four performance goals for fiscal year 2000, such as

“complete solicitation for, and selection of, candidate industrial teams for

the Entry Entrance Coproduction Plant Project....” Although DOE states

that it has met this goal, it is difficult to tell how much closer the

accomplishment of this goal brings the Department to meeting its

 4

Key elements of modern human capital management include strategic human capital

planning and organizational alignment; leadership continuity and succession planning;

acquiring and developing staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency needs; and

creating results-oriented organizational cultures.

Assessment of DOE’s

Progress and

Strategies in

Achieving Selected

Key Outcomes

Secure, Competitive

Energy Systems Serving

the Public
Page 7 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

objective of reducing oil imports by 5 percent. In addition, the

achievement of this outcome relies on strategic objectives, such as

“boosting the nation’s production of domestic oil,” that are determined

more by market forces than DOE’s actions. Although the Department

discusses the influence of factors such as world oil prices in its fiscal year

2002 performance plan, these factors are not mentioned in the

accountability report. Thus, it is unclear whether DOE considered them

when assessing the relevance of its performance goals in achieving its

longer term strategic objectives.

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan describes a multitude of

strategies for achieving secure and competitive energy systems that serve

the needs of the public.5

 These strategies include (1) conducting research

and development to increase the generating capacity and use of renewable

energy system; (2) maintaining an effective Strategic Petroleum Reserve;

(3) collaborating with industry to develop large, high efficiency, advanced

power systems; (4) performing research and development to improve the

performance of older fossil and nuclear power plants; and (5) promoting

the use of alternative fuel vehicles in selected markets and increasing

refueling infrastructure for alternative fuels. In some cases, these

strategies provide a clear description of DOE’s approach for reaching its

general performance goals. For example, for its general goal, “conducting

R&D [research and development] to increase the use of renewable,

distributed and hybrid energy systems,” the Department provides a

strategy that seeks to improve the reliability of the electricity

infrastructure system through “development of real time control and

information systems” and “increasing the production of high temperature

superconducting wires.” This strategy provides the detail necessary to

understand the types of research the Department is pursing to achieve this

goal. However, for most of the strategies within this outcome, the plan

uses language that is vague and seems little more than a restatement of a

general performance goal. For instance, one of the Department’s general

performance goals is to “enhance the economics and environmental

performance of electricity generation by expanding the use of multiproduct facilities that can also produce heat, clean fuels, and/or chemical

products.” The Department’s strategy for reaching this goal is to “promote

power systems R&D [research and development] that incorporates a

focused and collaborative effort between government and industry to

 5

For this particular outcome, we cite descriptions of general performance goals as

strategies because they explain in general terms how DOE plans to achieve this outcome.
Page 8 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

achieve the environmental and economic goals of the technologies.” This

description provides little information about the steps DOE intends to take

or its intended level of effort in this area. In those cases where the

Department describes its strategy it uses words such as “developing,”

“promoting,” or “enhancing” without specific details about the actions that

will be taken, consequently, almost any action DOE takes could probably

satisfy the strategy.

In its fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report, DOE reports

continued progress toward achieving its outcome to increase the

efficiency and productivity of energy use, while limiting environmental

impacts. In the fiscal year 2000 report, this key outcome is included as one

of the objectives under the outcome discussed above. Consequently, many

of the concerns—such as lack of clarity—that we have identified for the

prior outcome also apply to this one. For example, in its report, DOE

presents for this outcome, the strategic objective “by 2010, improve the

building stock by reducing annual energy consumption by 2 quadrillion

Btu relative to what would have been consumed.” DOE supports this

objective with five performance goals such as “recruit 5 utility partners to

promote Energy Star products; an additional 2,100 retail stores to promote

Energy Star products; and 40 window partners to promote Energy Star

windows.” However, this goal appears to be remote from and indirectly

related to its superceding objective, and it is difficult to tell how meeting

this goal will bring the Department closer to achieving its objective.

Moreover, several of the performance goals under this outcome entail

significant involvement of private industry or academia. It is therefore

difficult to determine, based on the material DOE presents in the

performance report, precisely what the Department’s contribution was to

the achievement of this outcome. As a result, the report does not provide a

good indicator of what DOE has accomplished to achieve this outcome.

To achieve this outcome, DOE includes several key strategies in its fiscal

year 2002 performance plan, including: (1) conducting research and

development to assist the introduction of lightweight materials and fuel

cells for vehicles of the future; (2) developing products that increase the

efficiency of residential and commercial buildings; and (3) developing

technologies, as well as providing financial and technical assistance, that

will assist energy-intensive industries such as agriculture and steel. In

most cases, these strategies clearly describe the Department’s approach

for achieving its general performance goals for this outcome. For example,

the performance goal, “designing and delivering the vehicles of the future,”

contains a strategy that will, among other things, focus on the use of

Efficiency of Energy Use

and Limiting

Environmental Impacts
Page 9 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

lightweight materials and enhance marketability through decreases in

battery costs for electric vehicles and the cost of fuel cell systems. This

strategy provides a clear picture of the technologies that the Department

has targeted to achieve its performance goal. Most of the strategies for this

outcome provide a level of detail that helps the reader understand how the

Department intends to reach its goals and what collaborative efforts DOE

plans to undertake with other entities to achieve this outcome. Moreover,

the strategies provide an important conceptual linkage between the more

general strategic objectives and the more narrow annual performance

goals.

DOE reported progress toward clean up of its contaminated nuclear

weapons and research sites, which is the key outcome under the

Department’s Environmental Quality business line. In its fiscal year 2000

performance and accountability report, DOE claimed success in meeting

its annual performance measures for five of the six strategic

environmental quality objectives. Overall, DOE’s cleanup performance

goals clearly supported their respective objectives and represented both

final outcome and intermediate annual goals used to track progress in an

ongoing cleanup effort that will take decades to complete. The annual

performance goals used were relevant and, where appropriate, quantified.

For example, under the objective “to clean up as many as possible of the

Department’s 44 remaining contaminated geographic sites by 2006,” DOE

reported progress in achieving this objective by, among other things,

completing cleanup at two geographic sites and deploying 202 new

technologies that will expedite other site cleanup efforts. Under another

objective, “to safely and expeditiously dispose of waste generated by

nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear research and development

programs,” DOE reported exceeding waste-volume disposal goals for

various types of radioactive wastes and resolving delays that prevented

meeting goals for waste shipments to the newly opened repository in New

Mexico.

While DOE’s performance measures were generally relevant and

appropriate, we noted three areas of weakness. First, in some cases,

DOE’s assessment of performance measures did not match actual

performance. For example, DOE reported meeting a measure to complete

cleanup at two geographic sites, despite noting that additional work was

identified at one of those sites. We question whether DOE should count as

complete any site where additional work was identified. Second, DOE did

not always provide adequate information on what efforts it undertook to

ensure data validation and verification—especially for some site-related

Cleanup of Contaminated

Nuclear Weapons and

Research Sites
Page 10 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

measurement data that appeared questionable. For example, DOE did not

discuss the reliability of the reported number for new technology

deployments—which was triple the goal. We have previously noted

problems with verification of site-reported new technology deployments

and whether they meet the Department’s criteria for counting as full

deployments.6

 Third, DOE did not provide adequate explanation for some

significant shortfalls in performance. For example, under its objective to

reduce the most serious risks first, DOE reported that progress in a key

goal—moving spent nuclear fuel to dry storage—was below expectations.

DOE explained that “only one transfer was completed because of multiple

operational and regulatory issues.” In fiscal year 1999, DOE stated that

failure to meet the same measure was due to activities being greatly

affected by a nuclear safety issue. Therefore, it is not clear whether DOE

missed its target in fiscal year 2000 because of new problems or because

of the continuation of problems from the previous year.

Generally, DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan includes strategies for

the Environmental Quality business line that focus on activities for six

objectives and provide brief discussions of priorities, program direction,

and collaboration with other agencies. For example, for the technology

development and deployment objective, the plan states “investments in

science and technology will continue to be planned and managed in an

interactive, coordinated, participatory relationship with EM cleanup

project managers and stakeholders.” Activities will not be funded unless

they address priority needs, reduce the cost of cleanup projects and

technological risk, accelerate and increase technology deployment, or

contribute to a targeted scientific research agenda. However, we noted

two areas of weakness in DOE’s fiscal year 2002 strategies for achieving

the objectives under this key outcome. First, DOE did not always highlight

known problems with its strategies. For example, under the waste

management objective, the plan stated that DOE would continue to ship

nuclear waste to New Mexico for disposal and continue operations to

produce disposal-ready, high-level waste canisters. However, the plan did

not mention the obstacles to the nuclear waste shipments or problems

encountered with the Hanford site high-level waste stabilization project

that were discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report. Similarly,

the plan does not address DOE’s ongoing problems with development of

alternatives to the failed tank waste separation project at the Savannah

 6

Nuclear Waste: Further Actions Needed to Increase the Use of Innovative Cleanup

Technologies (GAO/RCED-98-249, Sept. 25, 1998).
Page 11 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

River site. Both GAO and the National Research Council have reported

management problems with this project.7

 Second, DOE’s strategies did not

always address how the Department would correct performance shortfalls

that were very briefly addressed in the fiscal year 2000 performance

report. For example, DOE reported shortfalls under its objective to

“reduce risks to workers...” but offered limited corrective action plans for

the two goals under this objective. The Department claimed that the

“operational and regulatory issues for the spent nuclear fuel transfer

problem” have been “resolved” and that “recovery plans are being

developed” to meet commitments to stabilize the inventory of plutonium.

Such corrective action statements do not provide information as to the

nature of DOE’s corrective efforts and do not convey the extent to which

further problems may be experienced in meeting these goals and the

related objective. In fact, the Department’s baselines and outside reviews

indicate that DOE is not likely to meet its plutonium stabilization goals at

the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. Moreover, we recently

reported that the Rocky Flats plutonium stabilization program was a

significant and complex challenge and that there was significant

uncertainty as to whether the plutonium stabilization program would

successfully meet its milestones.8

Overall, DOE reported mixed progress in its efforts to further strengthen

national security and reduce the global danger from weapons of mass

destruction, which is the key outcome under its National Nuclear Security

business line. DOE’s efforts toward achieving this key outcome included

the Stockpile Stewardship Program, security improvements, the Naval

Reactors program, and nonproliferation and international nuclear security

efforts.9

 DOE reported progress for many of these efforts but also

highlighted the need for further work in the same areas. For example,

although DOE was able to certify that the nation’s nuclear weapons

 7

Nuclear Waste: Process to Remove Radioactive Waste From Savannah River Tanks Fails

to Work (GAO/RCED-99-69, Apr. 30, 1999). Alternatives for High-Level Waste Salt

Processing at the Savannah River Site, Committee on Cesium Processing Alternatives for

High-Level Waste at the Savannah River Site, National Research Council (2000).

8

Nuclear Cleanup: Progress Made at Rocky Flats, but Closure by 2006 Is Unlikely, and

Costs May Increase (GAO-01-284, Feb. 28, 2001).

9

Most of these efforts fall under the responsibility of the newly created National Nuclear

Security Administration (NNSA), although DOE’s Security and Emergency Operations

Office has the lead role in developing security policy and overseeing security-related

functions.

National Nuclear Security

and the Global Danger

from Weapons of Mass

Destruction
Page 12 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

stockpile remains safe and reliable, its Stockpile Stewardship Program

continued to have a mixed record in meeting its strategic goals and

performance targets. The Department reported meeting its goals for some

of its most important programs and projects such as tritium production

and maintaining testing readiness at the Nevada test site. Nevertheless, the

Department also reported that for the second straight year it had not been

able to meet all of its weapons maintenance and refurbishment schedules

and that not all of its facilities required by the Stockpile Stewardship

Program were fully operational. In the security area, DOE reported that it

was making progress in improving the security of its nuclear materials,

facilities, and sensitive information. While progress is evident, DOE also

acknowledges that many actions have to be fully implemented, finalized,

and allowed to mature. We note, however, that implementation has

historically been the weak link in improving DOE security.10 Many of the

policies, procedures, and technologies mentioned will have to be fully

implemented and sustained throughout DOE to show meaningful results.

Finally, DOE reported that it had made progress in reducing the global

danger from weapons of mass destruction through its nonproliferation and

international safety programs. DOE noted particular progress in

supporting arms control efforts, developing nonproliferation technology,

minimizing the risks of proliferation from the former Soviet Union, and

improving the safety of Soviet-designed reactors. However, DOE reported

a more mixed record of progress in its fissile materials disposition

 10Nuclear Security: Information on DOE’s Requirements for Protecting and Controlling

Classified Documents (GAO/T-RCED-00-47, July 11, 2000); Department of Energy: National

Security Controls Over Contractors Traveling to Foreign Countries Need Strengthening

(GAO/RCED-00-140, June 26, 2000); Information Security: Vulnerabilities in DOE’s Systems

for Unclassified Civilian Research (GAO/AIMD-00-140, June 9, 2000); Nuclear Security:

Security Issues at DOE and Its Newly Created National Nuclear Security Administration

(GAO/T-RCED-00-123, Mar. 14, 2000); Department of Energy: Views on DOE’s Plan to

Establish the National Nuclear Security Administration (GAO/T-RCED-00-113, Mar. 2,

2000); Nuclear Security: Improvements Needed in DOE’s Safeguards and Security

Oversight (GAO/RCED-0062, Feb. 24, 2000); Department of Energy: Key Factors Underlying

Security Problems at DOE Facilities (GAO/T-RCED-99-159, Apr. 20, 1999); and Department

of Energy: DOE Needs to Improve Controls Over Foreign Visitors to Weapons Laboratories

(GAO/T-RCED-99-28, Oct. 14, 1998).
Page 13 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

programs, an area DOE recognizes as a departmental challenge.11 DOE

reported continued problems with access to Russian facilities and slower

than expected progress in the design of U.S. plutonium disposition

facilities.

However, DOE’s reported progress for the national security outcome was

not always clear because of several shortcomings in the Department’s

goals, objectives, and measures. First, in some cases, there are missing

goals and measures for important efforts under this outcome. For

example, there is no explanation, other than the acknowledgement of

some organizational and logistical issues, and no goals or measures that

focus on fully establishing NNSA and implementing NNSA-led initiatives in

the areas of reorganization, human capital, and planning and budgeting.

Also, while the report refers to the important role for human capital in

maintaining the vitality of DOE’s national security enterprise, it contains

no direct human capital performance measures for the Stockpile

Stewardship Program. Second, some of DOE’s measures are processoriented and do not always provide an assessment of real, meaningful, and

measurable improvements in performance. For example, DOE’s Office of

Counterintelligence reported that it performed 11 inspections during fiscal

year 2000, but it failed to note what security improvements resulted from

these inspections. Third, DOE uses some performance measures that fail

to clearly state how they link to the relevant strategic objective. For

example, DOE fails to explain how the installation of safety parameter

display systems and simulators improves the safety of Soviet-designed

reactors. Likewise, the Department does not explain the roles that the

planned mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility and the pit disassembly and

conversion facility will play in the disposition of excess plutonium.

Without detailed knowledge of these programs, these measures have

limited value. Finally, DOE did not provide much information on actions to

validate and verify the reported progress or how the Department will

collaborate with other public and private entities for the national securityrelated outcome. This is especially notable in the nonproliferation and

 11Nuclear Nonproliferation: Security of Russia’s Nuclear Material Improving; Further

Enhancements Needed (GAO-01-312, Feb. 28, 2001); Nuclear Nonproliferation: Implications

of the U.S. Purchases of Russian Highly Enriched Uranium (GAO-01-148, Dec. 15, 2000);

Nuclear Nonproliferation: Limited Progress in Improving Nuclear Material Security in

Russia and the Newly Independent States (GAO/RCED/NSIAD-00-82, Mar. 6, 2000);

Weapons of Mass Destruction: U.S. Efforts to Reduce Threats from the Former Soviet

Union (GAO/T-NSIAD/RCED-00-119, Mar. 6, 2000); Nuclear Nonproliferation: Status of

Transparency Measures for U.S. Purchase of Russian Highly Enriched Uranium and

(GAO/RCED-99-194, Sept. 22, 1999).
Page 14 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

international nuclear safety strategic objectives, where DOE’ s programs

are part of a much broader, multiorganizational U.S. government effort.

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan continues with many of the

strategies that were in place in fiscal year 2001. DOE’s discussion of

general goals in the fiscal year 2002 plan is a useful addition to

understanding its programs. However, despite progress in outlining

strategies toward its general goals, DOE’s strategies for measuring

progress toward more specific objectives continue to have shortcomings.

For example, while the fiscal year 2002 plan mentions the creation of

NNSA and notes that ongoing high-level reviews of national security have

the potential to affect performance goals for fiscal year 2002 and beyond,

the plan does not discuss this as a challenge, nor does it include any

dedicated performance objectives or measures for establishing NNSA.

This is surprising because NNSA is in the process of implementing

changes to its management, planning and budgeting, organizational

alignment, and human capital that have the potential to address some of

the major management challenges that we and others have identified at

DOE. Similarly, DOE’s strategy for measuring two of its most important

Stockpile Stewardship objectives—conducting campaigns12 and ensuring

the vitality of its national security enterprise—raises questions. DOE

proposes measuring these goals through meeting (1) milestones in 17

campaign plans and (2) facility operating plans and construction schedules

in facility operation plans. While our recent review noted that DOE has a

multitude of plans and planning levels, historically DOE’s planning efforts

have not been integrated and have not been linked or integrated with

management controls such as budgets and contracts. 13 Although there are

planning and budgeting initiatives underway at NNSA to correct these

shortcomings, there are no objectives or performance measures included

in the fiscal year 2002 plan for these initiatives. Until these planning and

budgeting initiatives are successfully implemented, DOE’s existing plans

and milestones may not be adequate indicators of performance.

 12 Campaigns are technically challenging, multiyear, multifunctional efforts conducted

across the nuclear weapons complex. They are designed to develop and maintain the

critical capabilities needed to enable the continued certification of the stockpile into the

foreseeable future, without underground testing. Campaigns have milestones and specific

end-dates or goals, effectively focusing research and development activities on clearly

defined deliverables.

13Nuclear Weapons: Improved Management Needed to Implement Stockpile Stewardship

Program Effectively (GAO-01-48, Dec. 14, 2000).
Page 15 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

DOE’s fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report indicates

that the Department is making progress toward achieving the outcome of

improving the management of its research activities at reduced costs,

which is a key outcome under the Science business line. In its fiscal year

2000 report, DOE states that it met or exceeded all but one of its seven

goals related to this outcome. The goals for this outcome addressed a

range of activities from Fusion Energy Sciences, Biological and

Environmental Research, Basic Energy Sciences, and Advanced

Computing Research. For the goal that was “nearly met,” DOE provided a

plan of action to address the increased demand for computer resources.

However, while DOE may be making progress toward achieving science

and technology innovations, it is impossible to tell precisely how much

progress has been made based on the information presented in the fiscal

year 2000 performance report. This is because annual performance goals

and measures for this outcome vary in clarity and descriptiveness, and the

level of detail in the results sections vary by program with little

consistency among them.

Although Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance requires that

performance measures be described in terms understandable to the casual

reader, DOE has not applied this requirement consistently to its sciencerelated outcome. For example, one of the strategic objectives that

supports this outcome is to “manage the national laboratories, scienceuser facilities, and other DOE research providers and research facilities in

a more integrated, responsive, and cost-effective way, building on unique

core strengths and corresponding roles. Design, construct and operate

research facilities in a timely and cost-effective manner.” To achieve this

objective, DOE presents various performance goals, including to “operate

the DIII-DTokamak facility to test the feasibility of using increased radio

frequency heating power and improved power exhaust capabilities to

extend the pulse length of advanced operating modes, a requirement for

future fusion energy sources.” DOE states that “about one half of the new

rf [radio frequency] sources became available early this year, and these

were used in initial experiments in June.” DOE indicates that it met the

goal and provides some brief elaboration on the experiments conducted

that made “progress towards extending the pulse length of advanced

operating modes.” Contrary to the OMB guidance, the language used in

this description is laden with jargon and is not easy to comprehend.

In contrast, for other performance goals for this objective, such as “obtain

data from the second station on the North Slope of Alaska, and make

operational the third station in the Tropical Western Pacific on Christmas

Island,” DOE presents significantly greater detail that is relatively easily to

Science and Technology

Innovations
Page 16 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

understand. For example, DOE explains that these data are targeted at

improving climate prediction and a description of data collection efforts

that meet most of the elements associated with this performance goal are

presented. In addition, DOE indicates that the third station on Christmas

Island was deemed unacceptable due to infrastructure improvements that

were expected by the Japanese but not completed. A description of why

the third station was not completed is provided as well as the steps

necessary for installing a new third station.

DOE has significantly revised the materials presented in the fiscal year

2002 performance plan for the Science business line. However, the

outcome “science and technology innovations are achieved at reduced

costs” is not included as an outcome in the fiscal year 2002 plan, and the

new outcomes or objectives included in the plan do not specifically

address whether DOE’s science and technology innovations will be

achieved at reduced costs. Instead, the new strategies included in the plan

address such topics as leadership, foundations, and break throughs in the

physical sciences; environmental protection and cleanup; exploring matter

and energy at the atomic scale; and providing the infrastructure and

workforce to support the physical, biological, environmental, and

computational sciences. Some indications on cost savings may be

provided through the new set of performance indicators that the Office of

Science has established for all of its program activities and plans. These

indicators address excellence and relevance, leadership, quality, safety,

and health. DOE plans to report on these indicators in 2002. The quality

indicator provides an example of how DOE may address the issue of

reduced cost through the new indicators. For the quality indicator, DOE

states that it expects at least 80 percent of new research projects to be

peer reviewed and that all future scientific user facility upgrades and

construction must be within 10 percent, on average, of cost and schedule

milestones. Finally, for the science outcome, the plan includes several

relevant targets for the human capital challenge. For example, the Office

of Science is offering graduate fellowships to support the next generation

of leaders in computational sciences and using expert panels and peer

review committees as a regular evaluation tool to supplement existing

DOE staff expertise and ensure that research is focused and outstanding.
Page 17 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements

or remaining weaknesses in DOE’s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report

in comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report, and (2) fiscal year 2002

performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also

discusses the degree to which the agency’s fiscal year 2000 report and

fiscal year 2002 plan addresses concerns and recommendations by the

Congress, GAO, OIG, and others.

DOE has made some improvements in its fiscal year 2000 performance and

accountability report when compared to its fiscal year 1999 report. The

fiscal year 2000 report organizes detailed performance results by

departmental decision unit to better track with the budget. It also provides

cross-references so that the reader can easily find the annual performance

goals associated with particular outcomes. The fiscal year 2000 report also

has improved linkages between performance objectives and funding

because it provides a crosswalk between the performance goals and the

DOE budget decision units that fund specific programs.

However, like the fiscal year 1999 report, the fiscal year 2000 report still

does not consistently present a clear picture of what the Department has

accomplished for its major business lines or how it plans to get there. For

example, both reports mention the creation of NNSA, but neither includes

any goals or performance measures associated with the establishment of

NNSA. Similarly, both reports tend to provide very few performance

measures for the Stockpile Stewardship Program, relative to the other

programs within this business line. Furthermore, neither report provides

much information on DOE’s actions to validate and verify the reported

progress or strategies for measuring progress; nor do they provide much

information on DOE’s collaboration and coordination activities with other

federal agencies. In addition, for both fiscal years, the information

provided for annual performance goals and measures for some outcomes

varies significantly. Some program-level goals and measures are very

detailed and others more general. This variance makes it difficult for the

reader to gain an overall perspective of progress within a particular

outcome. In addition, sometimes they are so narrowly drawn that, without

Comparison of DOE’s

Fiscal Year 2000

Performance Report

and Fiscal Year 2002

Performance Plan

With the Prior Year

Report and Plan for

Selected Key

Outcomes

Comparison of

Performance Reports for

Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000
Page 18 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

additional information on strategies or longer term goals, it is difficult to

determine the Department’s objectives or means for achieving them.

Finally, the OIG noted that, overall, DOE’s fiscal year 1999 performance

measures did not include cost-effectiveness attributes. This observation

continues to apply to some of the outcomes in the fiscal year 2000 report.

For example, while the environmental quality indicators in the fiscal year

2000 report are good measures of program outputs, they do not capture

overall cost-effectiveness or other Department-wide objectives, such as

safety and integration of similar cleanup activities among sites. Without

such measures that address competing concerns, DOE’s performance

measures can have unintended consequences. For example, for several

years DOE has reported successfully meeting cleanup production goals at

the Defense Waste Processing Facility in Savannah River. However, the

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board recently expressed concern that

large volumes of wastewater from this activity were straining the high

level waste tank capacity and reducing the margin of safety at the site.

In our previous reviews of DOE’s performance plans, we identified the

following weaknesses: (1) DOE’s plans did not provide reasons why

individual objectives, performance goals, or measures were revised,

dropped, or added and (2) some of the performance goals and measures

lacked clarity and quantification, making it hard to get a clear picture of

intended performance. Our review of DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan found that for some outcomes these weaknesses generally remain.

While DOE has made an effort to highlight changes to objectives, goals,

and measures in the fiscal year 2002 plan, it did not do so in all cases. For

example, with minimal explanation the plan dropped some of the

Environmental Quality objectives from the previous year, and it no longer

has any general or annual performance goals related to (1) long-term

stewardship, even though one of the new Environmental Quality strategic

objectives specifically refers to such stewardship activities, and (2)

pollution prevention, although the plan continues to mention pollution

prevention goals under its discussion of waste management strategies.

While performance goals should be periodically modified, the

Department’s accountability would be improved by explaining why these

kinds of major revisions occurred.

The Department’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan also contains a new

item—general performance goals for each budgetary decision unit. This

represents a significant improvement over the fiscal year 2001 plan, which

failed to link many of the performance indicator results with a specific

Comparison of

Performance Plans for

Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Page 19 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

performance objective and therefore obscured the linkage between annual

performance and progress toward long-term objectives. The Department

states that it included these goals as a way to develop indicators of longterm outcomes. For example, under each general performance goal for the

business lines the plan describes the performance indicators that will be

used to measure progress for that goal. However, the general performance

goals in the fiscal year 2002 performance plan often use words such as

“promote,” “develop,” and “enhance” that do not provide a clear idea of

how the Department intends to reach its goals. Furthermore, the

Department has reduced the number of performance measures associated

with most of its goals for both fiscal years. For some goals, the lack of an

adequate number of performance measures may lead to future difficulties

in fully measuring DOE’s progress in achieving these goals. For some

outcomes, such as the national security outcome, the plan states that

additional performance indicators for its general goals are in development.

It is therefore possible that additional performance measures for some

programs may be included in DOE’s final plan. As it currently stands, there

are no performance measures for DOE’s Intelligence and Counter

Intelligence efforts, and only one broad measure—in use since fiscal year

2000—for DOE’s Security and Emergency Operations.

Finally, although DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan improved its

discussion of data validation and verification by discussing the data

systems under each program office, the plan falls short of disclosing

specific performance data limitations or providing instances where DOE

did not verify site-reported data. Such data limitations could be significant

in validating the Department’s reported progress. Recently, the Chairman

of the House Government Reform Committee affirmed the importance of

valid and accurate performance data by requesting the OIG to verify

reported data for significant performance measures. The OIG review of 10

selected performance measures found inadequate documentation to

validate the results for two measures.

GAO has identified two governmentwide high-risk areas: strategic human

capital management and information security. Regarding strategic human

capital management, we found that DOE’s performance report explained

its progress in resolving this management challenge for only some of its

business lines and that the performance plan did not consistently include

goals and measures related to this management challenge for all of its

business lines. For example, in its fiscal year 2000 accountability report,

DOE reports favorable progress in meeting the strategic human capital

management challenge for the science outcome, but it does not provide

DOE’s Efforts to

Address its Major

Management

Challenges Identified

by GAO
Page 20 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

this information for the other outcomes. This is particularly notable for the

Environmental Quality outcome, where we have reported that DOE faces

significant human management challenges in its oversight of large projects

such as the cleanup of hazard waste sites. However, the report did not

include specific Environmental Quality goals or measures to address this

challenge. In May 2001, the OIG reported that DOE’s fiscal year 2000

accountability report did not have any agencywide performance measures

that would address its considerable human capital challenge. Similarly, in

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan, while the science-related

outcome includes goals and measures for strategic human capital

management challenges the other outcomes do not. With respect to

information security, we found that DOE identified security, which

includes cyber and information security, as a departmental challenge in its

fiscal year 2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan, and launched a number of

initiatives designed to protect its nuclear materials, facilities, and sensitive

information. Overall, the Department reports that it is making progress in

improving security. While some progress is evident, some of DOE’s

performance measures are process-oriented and do not always provide an

assessment of real, meaningful, and measurable improvements in

information security. Moreover, it appears that most of DOE’s security

related performance measures for fiscal year 2002 are still under

development.

In addition, GAO has identified six major management challenges facing

DOE. We found that DOE recognized almost all of the management

challenges that we identified as departmental challenges in its fiscal year

2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan. DOE’s performance report generally

discussed the Department’s progress in resolving most of its management

challenges for some of its business lines. However, the level of detail

provided across the key outcomes varies extensively, and it is not always

possible to comprehensively assess DOE’s progress in resolving these

management challenges. Of the six major management challenges GAO

identified, DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance plan included (1) goals and

measures that directly related to one of the challenges, (2) goals and

measures that indirectly related to three of the challenges, and (3) no goals

and measures related to two of the management challenges.

As agreed, our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of

GPRA, the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, guidance to agencies from

the Office of Management and Budget for developing performance plans

and reports (OMB Circular A-11, Part 2), previous reports and evaluations

by us and others, our knowledge of DOE’s operations and programs, GAO

Scope and

Methodology
Page 21 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

identification of best practices concerning performance planning and

reporting, and our observations on DOE’s other GPRA-related efforts. We

also discussed our review with agency officials in DOE’s Office of Policy,

OIG, and the Chief Financial Officer. The agency outcomes that were used

as the basis for our review were identified by the Ranking Minority

Member, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, as important mission

areas for the agency and generally reflect the outcomes for most of DOE’s

programs or activities. The major management challenges confronting

DOE, including the governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human

capital management and information security, were identified by GAO in

our January 2001 performance and accountability series and high risk

update, and were identified by DOE’s Office of Inspector General in

December 2000. We did not independently verify the information

contained in the performance report and plan, although we did draw from

other GAO work in assessing the validity, reliability, and timeliness of

DOE’s performance data. We conducted our review from April 2001

through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to DOE for its review and

comment. On June 22, 2000, senior officials from DOE’s Office of

Strategic Planning and Evaluation provided oral comments on the draft

report. Overall, the DOE officials stated that the report was well balanced

in its description of the strengths and weaknesses of the performance

report and plan. However, the officials made two specific comments.

First, with regard to the performance plan, the officials felt that DOE had

made significant progress in clearly identifying the objectives, goals, and

measures that had been revised from the prior year’s plan. They did not

believe that the plan had to identify reasons for every change made to the

objectives, goals, and measures. In particular, they noted that because the

performance plan is closely linked to DOE’s strategic plan, many of the

changes to the fiscal year 2002 plan were a result of changes made to the

strategic plan. Because the changes to the strategic plan have already been

through an extensive comment and review process, the DOE officials

stated that it was not necessary to revisit the reasons for these changes in

the performance plan. We have modified the report to acknowledge

DOE’s efforts to highlight changes to its objectives, goals, and measures in

the fiscal year 2002 plan. Secondly, the DOE officials noted that the key

outcomes that GAO was asked to review were quite broad and not easily

quantifiable. Thus, they believe that it would be difficult to evaluate the

Department’s progress in achieving these key outcomes without detailed

program evaluations. The officials stated that they would like to see the

Agency Comments
Page 22 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

nature of GAO’s GPRA-related reviews expand to more detailed program

evaluations rather than limited to reviews of planning and reporting

documents. They said that such reviews would be more helpful in further

refining their GPRA related reporting and planning practices. We agree

that performance evaluations are a logical step in evaluating an agency’s

progress in achieving its key outcomes. Consequently, our review of

DOE’s performance report and plan relied extensively on previous reports

and evaluations by us and others, our knowledge of DOE’s operations and

programs, and our identification of best practices concerning performance

planning and reporting. Moreover, GPRA requires agency’s to conduct

systematic performance evaluations on a regular basis so that they can

determine whether their programs have achieved the intended objectives.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the

date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate

congressional committees; the Secretary of Energy; and the Director,

Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to

others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.

Key contributors to this report were Mark Gaffigan, Jonathan Gill, Anu

Mittal, Diane Raynes, Patricia Rennie, and Daren Sweeney.

Sincerely yours,

Jim Wells

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 23 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

The following table identifies the major management challenges

confronting the Department of Energy (DOE), which includes the

governmentwide high-risk areas of strategic human capital management

and information security. The first column lists the challenges that we

and/or DOE’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) have identified. The

second column discusses what progress, as discussed in its fiscal year

2000 performance report, DOE made in resolving its challenges. The third

column discusses the extent to which DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan includes performance goals and measures to address the challenges

that we and the OIG identified. DOE’s performance report generally

recognizes almost all of the management challenges that GAO and others

have identified as departmental challenges in its fiscal year 2000 report

and fiscal year 2002 plan. We found that DOE’s performance report

discussed the agency’s progress in resolving most of the management

challenges for some of its business lines. However, the level of detail

provided across the key outcomes varied extensively, and it is not always

possible to comprehensively assess DOE’s progress in resolving these

management challenges. For example, we could not determine the level of

progress that had been made in resolving management challenges relating

to the establishment of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Of

DOE’s 12 major management challenges identified by both GAO and OIG,

the fiscal year 2002 performance plan included (1) goals and measures that

directly related to three of the challenges, (2) goals and measures that

indirectly related to six of the challenges, and (3) no goals and measures

that related to three of the management challenges.

Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 24 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Table 1: Major Management Challenges for the Department of Energy

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

GAO-designated governmentwide high risk

Strategic human capital

management: GAO has identified

shortcomings at multiple agencies

involving key elements of modern

strategic human capital

management, including strategic

human capital planning and

organizational alignment; leadership

continuity and succession planning;

acquiring and developing staff whose

size, skills, and deployment meet

agency needs; and creating resultsoriented organizational cultures.

(DOE’s OIG has also identified

strategic human capital management

as a management challenge for the

agency.)

DOE’s fiscal year 2000 report recognizes human

capital management as a departmental challenge.

However, only two of the four business lines

included any goals and measures to address

human capital challenges in the report.

DOE’s Science business line articulates the

importance of having the scientific workforce to

ensure leadership in the physical, biological,

environmental, and computational sciences. Also,

under the National Security business line, the

report contained one human capital goal in its

discussion of nonproliferation goals, but no direct

measures for this challenge. Thus, overall, it is

difficult to assess what progress DOE as an

agency has made in addressing this challenge.

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 plan generally

does not include goals or measures for

the human capital management

challenge for three of the four business

lines. For the Science business line, the

plan does include several relevant

targets for the human capital challenge.

For example, the Office of Science is

offering graduate fellowships to support

the next generation of leaders in

computational sciences and using expert

panels and peer review committees as a

regular evaluation tool to supplement

existing DOE staff expertise and ensure

that research is focused and

outstanding.

Information security: GAO’s January

2001 high-risk update noted that the

agencies’ and the government’s

efforts to strengthen information

security have gained momentum and

expanded. Nevertheless, recent

audits continue to show federal

computer systems are riddled with

weaknesses that make them highly

vulnerable to computer-based

attacks and place a broad range of

critical operations and assets at risk

of fraud, misuse, and disruption.

In its fiscal year 2000 performance report, DOE

recognized information security as a departmental

challenge. In its report, DOE stated it had met its

goals on two performance measures designed to

improve information security. In addition, DOE

reported that it had completed five critical

milestones in its Federal Managers Financial

Integrity Act (FMFIA) Corrective Action plan

designed to improve its information and cyber

security. While some progress is evident, most of

these measures appear more process- and

activity- instead of outcome-oriented.

DOE’s independent auditor’s report for fiscal year

2000, included in the fiscal year 2000 performance

report, identified unclassified information system

security as a reportable weakness because of

repeated network vulnerabilities and access control

weaknesses.

In its fiscal year 2002 performance plan,

DOE continues to identify security as a

departmental challenge. In its statement

of general performance goals, DOE

describes a number of activities

designed to modernize its information

security programs to analyze and deter

major incidents involving the

compromise of classified information.

Nevertheless, DOE does not provide a

readily accessible and clear picture of

how it intends to measure progress on

this important goal, since it has few

dedicated information security

performance measures. Nor does the

plan address recognized weaknesses in

DOE’s unclassified information systems.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 25 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

GAO-designated major management challenges

Financial management: For the past

2 years, the independent auditor’s

report on DOE’s consolidated

financial statements has reported

financial management concerns at

the Western Area Power

Administration (WAPA). WAPA

markets and transmits electric power

and provides related services.

DOE’s independent auditor’s report for fiscal year

2000, included in the fiscal year 2000 performance

report, identified financial management at WAPA

as a reportable condition. The report notes that

WAPA has made improvements over the past year

but is still exposed to potential loss of data

integrity, reporting inaccuracies, and operational

inefficiencies. However, DOE did not list this as a

departmental challenge in its fiscal year 2000

performance report.

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 plan included a

goal to manage financial resources to

achieve an independent auditor’s

unqualified opinion in the Department’s

annual audit. However, DOE did not

address the reportable condition for

financial management at WAPA as a

targeted measure in its plan under this

goal. Addressing the reportable condition

would be an appropriate target to assist

in meeting the objective of receiving an

unqualified audit opinion in the future.

The only performance measure included

in the plan for this objective is complete

implementation of their Business

Management Information System

nationwide by fiscal year 2002.

Nonproliferation issues: Achieving

nonproliferation goals requires

improved priority setting and

program coordination. GAO identified

three main challenges that DOE’s

nonproliferation programs face.

These include obtaining better

access to information and Russian

nuclear weapons laboratories to

better target program resources to

the greatest risks, verifying the use

of program funds, and coordinating

several DOE programs involving the

newly independent states to increase

their effectiveness. Our reviews of

DOE’s nonproliferation programs

recognize that there are inherent

difficulties involved in working with

Russia and the other newly

independent states.

While DOE has over 30 performance measures

spread out over three strategic goals related to

reducing the global danger from weapons of mass

destruction and improving international safety, very

few of these measures specifically addressed the

management challenges we identified for this area.

DOE’s report, however, recognized that the

disposition of U.S. and Russian surplus fissile

materials was a departmental challenge. DOE’s

report contained 11 performance measures related

to this challenge and stated that the Department

had made mixed progress in disposing of surplus

fissile materials. Several important activities, such

as installing monitoring equipment at Russian

highly enriched uranium (HEU) conversion facilities

and completing title I design of two plutonium

disposition facilities fell behind schedule. The

Department’s performance measures do not

convey a coherent picture of the strategy for

disposing of surplus U.S. plutonium.

(Also discussed under outcomes.)

While DOE continues to have a number

of performance measures related to

reducing the global danger from

weapons of mass destruction and

improving international safety in its fiscal

year 2002 plan, very few of these

measures specifically address the

management challenges we identified for

this area. Within the performance plan,

however, there is evidence that DOE has

been working actively with Russia and

other nations to improve access to

information and facilities. For example,

DOE officials plan to initiate technical

discussions with Russian officials on the

installation of monitoring equipment at a

Russian HEU conversion facility.

The fiscal year 2002 plan continues to

recognize that the disposition of U.S.

and Russian surplus fissile materials is a

departmental challenge. For the plan,

DOE has seven performance measures

related to this challenge. Efforts will

continue to be made in fiscal year 2002

to install monitoring equipment in

Russian HEU conversion facilities. While

there is a better discussion of the

strategy for disposing of U.S. plutonium,

realization of this goal may be hampered

by reduced design work on the pit

disassembly and conversion facility and

by suspension of work on a plutonium

immobilization facility.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 26 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

GAO- and IG-designated major management challenges

Nuclear weapons stockpile: GAO

and others have found pervasive and

long-standing problems with DOE’s

ability to address project

management, planning and

budgeting, organizational alignment,

and human capital challenges, while

effectively and efficiently maintaining

nuclear weapons capabilities. DOE

has sought to maintain through the

Stockpile Stewardship Program, the

safety and reliability of U.S. nuclear

weapons under a nuclear testing

moratorium in the post-Cold War era.

The Congress created the National

Nuclear Security Administration

(NNSA) to deal with many of these

problems.

Four of DOE’s strategic goals and 11 performance

measures involve DOE’s Stockpile Stewardship

Program. However, DOE uses relatively few

performance measures that directly address the

major management challenges we have identified

in the program. For example, DOE’s reported

progress in improving management issues is

mixed. In addition, DOE does not directly address

planning and budgeting issues or strategic human

capital management issues in its discussion of the

Stockpile Stewardship Program.

(Also discussed under outcomes.)

In the fiscal year 2002 plan, three of

DOE’s goals and nine performance

measures involve DOE’s Stockpile

Stewardship Program, but relatively few

of these measures directly address this

management challenge. Regarding

project management, instead of specific

project goals, the plan includes only one

broad performance measure to meet

established facility operating plans and

construction schedules. There are no

performance measures related to

planning and budgeting, organizational

alignment, and human capital issues,

even though NNSA is taking specific,

congressionally directed actions in all

three areas.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 27 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Contract management: Problems in

contract management (which

includes project management) place

DOE at high risk for fraud, waste,

abuse, and mismanagement. This

has been a challenge for DOE since

1990, especially because DOE relies

heavily on contractors to achieve

most of its missions. DOE has begun

a number of initiatives to improve

contractor management, but it is too

soon to tell whether the initiatives will

be effective in the long-run. In

addition, several OIG audits have

found that many of DOE’s contract

reform goals have yet to be

achieved.

In the Corporate Management overview section of

its fiscal year 2000 report, DOE claims steady

progress toward adopting performance-based

management as the foundation of its major

management contracts. However, the report

acknowledges that project management problems

continue to adversely affect credibility in the

Department’s ability to build new facilities or

upgrade systems. For example, the Department

terminated its $7 billion contract under the Office of

River Protection to stabilize high level tank waste

due to concerns about the contractor’s

performance and rapidly escalating cost estimates.

The Department reports that it is acting

aggressively to implement project management

reforms as recommended by a National Research

Council study and other internal and external

reviews of the problem. Nevertheless, more time

will be needed to achieve intended goals.

Overall, DOE’s report does not include

performance measures related to this challenge for

its other four business lines. The Environmental

Quality business line includes a performance

measure that applies directly to contract

management—to monitor and review activities at

the Savannah River Operations Office and ensure

adherence to project costs and schedules. DOE

reported that it conducted several reviews;

however, it did not indicate the outcome of those

reviews. Similarly, DOE included the continued

construction of the National Ignition Facility (NIF)

and the rebaselining of NIF as an explicit

performance measure in the fiscal year 2000 report

but offered no performance measures to ensure

that management and oversight problems were

being corrected. The report also includes a

performance measure to begin the execution of the

Defense related project management campaign,

within the National Security business line section of

the report. However, the discussion is vague, and it

is unclear where this activity is being performed in

DOE and how this effort is being applied to major

national security projects.

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan addresses contract/project

management challenges primarily under

a Corporate Management general

performance objective to ensure public

confidence in the Department’s

contractual transactions. The plan states

that performance indicators for this

objective are under development and

includes annual targets to increase the

use of E-government services and

performance-based contracts. However,

the business line sections of the plan

have few general performance

objectives or measures that specifically

apply to contract/project management.

For example, under the Environmental

Quality business line, the plan does not

measure the cost effectiveness or

timeliness of DOE’s major environmental

projects.

In its fiscal year 2001 plan, DOE

included a performance measure for the

implementation of a six-point plan to

improve the project management of NIF.

This did not carry over into fiscal year

2002. Instead, the Department intends to

gauge the performance of major projects

such as NIF, pit production, and tritium

readiness through Campaign Program

Plans and Campaign Implementation

Plans.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 28 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Security: Numerous studies have

identified pervasive weaknesses in

DOE’s security controls. Our reports

have highlighted weaknesses in

computerized information systems,

foreign visitor, and foreign travel

programs. While DOE has

responded to many

recommendations, the Department

has not always followed through to

ensure that improvements are

consistently implemented.

DOE identified security as a departmental

challenge and launched a number of initiatives

designed to protect its nuclear materials, facilities,

and sensitive information. For example, the

Department listed over 20 detailed performance

measures, including performance measures for

information security, related to improving security

in fiscal year 2000. Overall, the Department reports

that it is making progress in improving security.

While some progress is evident, some of DOE’s

performance measures are process-oriented and

do not always provide an assessment of real,

meaningful, and measurable improvements in

security. For example, DOE’s Office of

Counterintelligence reported that it performed 11

inspections during fiscal year 2000, but it failed to

note what security improvements resulted from

these inspections. In other areas where DOE said

it had met its goals, the policies are currently being

reviewed because of implementation concerns and

issues raised by DOE field offices.

In addition, some important security measures may

not be addressed. For example, we noted recently

that the creation of NNSA offered DOE a unique

opportunity to increase the effectiveness of

security for nuclear weapons information and

security, but the report fails to mention either the

security challenges or the opportunities for

improvement presented by the creation of NNSA.

DOE acknowledges that many actions have to be

fully implemented, finalized, and allowed to mature.

For fiscal year 2002, DOE continues to

identify security as a departmental

challenge and includes the goal of the

effective management of information

technology resources in the Department.

The fiscal year 2002 plan states that

performance indicators for this objective

are in development. For example, there

are no performance measures listed for

DOE’s intelligence and

counterintelligence programs and only

one measure for DOE’s Office of

Security and Emergency Operations.

This one measure – complete the

milestones listed in the FMFIA corrective

action plan for the departmental

challenge of security – is broad and has

been a performance measure since

fiscal year 2000. Without ready

information on what these milestones

are, and without further information on

additional performance measures, it is

difficult to see how the Department will

assess its performance in fiscal year

2002.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 29 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Environmental cleanup: Over 50

years of nuclear weapons research

and production have left a legacy of

environmental contamination that

poses unacceptable risks. The

magnitude of the cleanup effort,

which includes technical complexities

and uncertainties at 44 remaining

sites, ensures that it will remain a

departmental challenge for the

foreseeable future. The OIG reported

that the Department has made

progress in defining the cleanup

effort, estimating its scope, and

prioritizing individual projects;

however, increased management

attention is needed to achieve

intended environmental outcomes.

In its fiscal year 2000 report, DOE’s strategic goal

for its Environmental Quality business line

encompasses this environmental challenge. DOE

also includes this challenge under two

departmental challenges (Environmental

Compliance and Nuclear Waste Disposal). The

Department reports progress in implementing an

aggressive plan to accelerate site cleanups and

complete as many sites as possible by 2006.

Numerous Environmental Quality performance

objectives and measures monitor the intermediate

and final steps toward cleanup and closure of

these and other sites. The results of these

measures are discussed in the previous section of

this report.

Our January 2001 report of major management

challenges and program risks at DOE also

recognized that DOE has made progress in

establishing project baselines, which define the

scope of work, estimated costs, and schedules.

Nevertheless, DOE’s largest, most expensive and

complex cleanup sites and its most challenging

technical problems lie ahead. To meet these

challenges, the Department will need to further

improve baselines and integrate cleanup activities

among sites and within multipurpose sites.

(Also discussed under outcomes.)

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan continues to address this challenge

with its Environmental Quality general

performance goals and related

performance indicators that monitor

progress toward completion of

geographic site cleanups, safe disposal

of wastes generated from past and

current activities, stabilization of nuclear

materials and spent nuclear fuel to

reduce safety and environmental risks,

deployment of innovative technologies to

expedite cleanup and reduce costs, and

development of a repository for civilian

high-level radioactive waste and spent

nuclear fuel. The plan adds a

performance goal for disposal of the

Department’s depleted uranium

hexafluoride and excess natural uranium

inventories and states that performance

indicators for this goal are under

development.

IG-designated major management challenges

National Nuclear Security

Administration: The successful

establishment and integration of

NNSA may help correct many of

DOE’s long-standing management

problems, but it may be several

years before NNSA’s progress can

be fully assessed. The OIG has

identified many logistical,

organizational, and policy challenges

associated with the establishment of

NNSA, which is in charge of most of

DOE’s important national security

missions and nearly one-third of

DOE’s budget.

DOE’s fiscal year 2000 performance report

acknowledges that there are logistical and

organizational issues surrounding the creation of

NNSA. DOE states it is establishing responsibilities

and authorities, formalizing new working

relationships, resolving cross-cutting funding

issues, and working to ensure that its programs

brought together under NNSA are integrated and

effective. However, the report does not identify any

performance objectives or measures associated

with the challenge of establishing and integrating

NNSA. Therefore, it is impossible to determine

what progress DOE has made in resolving this

management challenge.

The fiscal year 2002 plan mentions the

creation of NNSA and notes that the

ongoing high-level reviews of national

security have the potential to affect

performance goals for fiscal year 2002

and beyond. However, it does not

discuss this as a challenge nor does it

include any dedicated performance

objectives or measures.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 30 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Energy technology: Recent events,

coupled with the recent dramatic

spike in oil prices, have lead to a

renewed national focus on the

significance of oil imports and the

technology to mitigate energy

dependency. Consequently, the OIG

has designated this as a major

management challenge for DOE.

DOE mentions energy technology under the overall

departmental challenge of energy markets in its

fiscal year 2000 report. The report describes the

Department’s efforts as supporting research and

development or demonstrating technologies that

are designed to boost oil and natural gas

production and develop renewable energy sources

such as solar and wind. Because DOE does not

clearly describe its activities or how much they

contribute toward long-term performance goals, it

is difficult to determine how much progress the

Department made toward this challenge in fiscal

year 2000.

(Also discussed under outcomes.)

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 plan describes

many goals and measures that are

designed to develop energy technologies

in oil, natural gas, and renewable

energy. However, the plan often

describes strategies and goals using

words such as “developing” and

“enhancing” that make it difficult for the

reader to infer precisely what actions the

Department plans to take.

Information technology: Since 1996,

the OIG has issued 10 audit reports

identifying problems associated with

DOE’s implementation of the ClingerCohen Act and its management of

$1.6 billion in annual information

technology expenditures. Two of the

OIG’s recent reports concluded that

DOE did not have an effective

management strategy for information

technology, as was illustrated by its

many duplicative information

systems. The OIG reported that “the

development of duplicative or

redundant waste information tracking

systems at the contractor level

consumed significant resources and

exacerbated system proliferation

problems.”

DOE’s fiscal year 2000 performance report

recognizes information technology as a

departmental challenge. However, performance

goals and measures are included in the report only

for two of the four business lines. For example, for

the Science business line, DOE states that it did

not meet 75 percent of the requirements of

computer facilities and network uses. The demand

for computing capabilities far exceeded what

current resources were able to provide, with

current computers at the National Energy

Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC)

providing less than one half of the resources

requested this year. DOE expects the pressure to

increase in the future as more applications become

ready to move from software testing to use for

generating new science. To address this problem,

only the highest priority research was selected for

the available resources, as determined by the

Energy Science Network (Esnet) Steering

Committee.

In addition, for the National Security business line,

the report indicates that DOE either met or

exceeded its goals for all but one target under the

goal of ensuring that the Department’s information

systems are based on cost-effective technology

solutions.

While DOE’s fiscal year 2002 plan

recognizes information technology as a

departmental challenge, goals and

measures are included for this issue only

under two business lines. For example,

for the Science business line, the plan

articulates the importance of having the

scientific workforce and infrastructure to

ensure leadership in the computational

sciences. For the Advanced Scientific

Computing Research Office the fiscal

year 2002 targets include providing

support for the competitively selected

Integrated Software Infrastructure

Centers to address critical computer

science and systems software issues for

terascale computers. Another target is to

support the operation of the IBM-SP

computer at about 3.5 teraflops “peak”

performance. In addition, the plan

includes 2002 targets for operating

facilities, including NERSC and Esnet,

within budget while meeting user needs

and satisfying overall Science program

requirements.

For the National Security business line,

the plan continues to include the goal of

ensuring that the Department’s

information systems are based on costeffective technology solutions; however,

the plan only includes one measure–

complete the milestones listed in DOE’s

corrective action plan for security.
Appendix I: Observations on the Department

of Energy’s Efforts to Address Its Major

Management Challenges

Page 31 GAO-01-823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge

Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000

performance report

Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Safety and health: DOE faces

difficult safety and health challenges

that encompass all activities related

to radioactive and hazardous wastes,

as well as nuclear safety,

occupational safety, and health of

workers in construction, scientific,

and other departmental activities.

DOE’s fiscal year 2000 report recognizes safety

and health as one of the departmental challenges.

All of DOE’s performance objectives and measures

pertaining to waste management and disposal

encompass safe handling and storage in addition

to maximizing waste isolation to reduce risks.

Under its performance reporting for Corporate

Management, DOE reported progress toward this

challenge, including implementation of its

Integrated Safety Management (ISM) program at

all but two sites and completion of 11 safety

management evaluations in fiscal year 2000. The

Department also reported correcting 80 of 106

vulnerabilities identified with storage of spent

nuclear fuel.

DOE’s fiscal year 2000 performance objectives

under Environmental Quality prioritized certain

measures to reduce the greatest risks to the

workers, the public, and the environment. As

discussed earlier in this report, the Department

reported that its efforts toward this objective were

partially successful.

The Department reported meeting commitments to

the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to

ensure the safety of its inventory of depleted

uranium hexafluoride.

DOE’s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan addresses the safety challenge

under its Corporate Management

performance measures. The general

performance goal is to integrate and

embed sound environment, safety, and

health practices into the performance of

DOE’s day-to-day work. The Department

monitors five indicators, such as the rate

of work-related injuries or average

worker exposure to radiation, to assess

the effectiveness of its ISM program.

Under the Environmental Quality

business line fiscal year 2002

performance indicator goals that relate

specifically to safety include stabilization

of nuclear materials, spent nuclear fuel,

and depleted uranium hexafluoride

containers. To complete its geographic

cleanups, the Department states that it

will first focus on reducing any worker or

public safety and health risks. However,

the performance measures under this

objective do not directly track DOE’s

progress in integrating safety practices

into its cleanup activities.

(360075)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs