Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

July 2001 TECHNOLOGY

TRANSFER

DOE Has Fewer

Partnerships, and

They Rely More on

Private Funding

GAO-01-568
Page 1 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

July 6, 2001

The Honorable Carl Levin

Chairman

The Honorable John W. Warner

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Stump

Chairman

The Honorable Ike Skelton

Ranking Democratic Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

Since 1980, the Congress has enacted several laws designed to improve the

United States’ competitive position in the world economy by facilitating

the transfer of technology from federal laboratories to U.S businesses.

Specifically, the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of

1989 authorized federal laboratories operated by contractors—including

the Department of Energy’s (DOE) national laboratories—to enter into

cooperative research and development agreements (CRADA) that are

consistent with the laboratories’ mission. By fiscal year 1995, DOE’s three

nuclear weapons laboratories—Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,

Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories—were

among the leading federal laboratories participating in CRADAs with

businesses, universities, and other private partners. In addition, DOE’s

Kansas City, Pantex, and Oak Ridge Y-12 nuclear weapons production

facilities began entering into CRADAs in the mid-1990s. Within DOE, these

laboratories and production facilities are managed by the National Nuclear

Security Administration. Both the private partner(s) and the DOE

laboratory or production facility generally have provided scientists and

facilities for CRADA projects, and private partners have also provided

funding to cover a portion of the research costs. According to DOE, the

laboratories and production facilities have also transferred technology by,

for example, providing technical assistance to small businesses and

entering into “work-for-other” agreements, in which the private entity pays

the laboratory’s full costs for performing a research project.

To further encourage DOE’s nuclear weapons laboratories and production

facilities to enter into partnerships with private entities, the Congress

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

established the Technology Transfer Initiative in fiscal year 1991 to

provide funding specifically designated for supporting CRADAs and other

types of partnerships.1 Technology Transfer Initiative funding increased

from about $1 million initially to $205 million in fiscal year 1995. However,

the Congress began to phase out these dedicated funds in fiscal year 1996

and rely instead on program managers at the laboratories and production

facilities to use regular research funding for partnerships that would

significantly benefit their programs. While the use of research funds

instead of dedicated funds ensures that a CRADA project will have

primary benefits to DOE’s research mission, it has raised concerns that

DOE’s laboratories will be less likely to support technology development

partnerships.

In response to these concerns, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 directed DOE’s Administrator for

Nuclear Security to report on (1) the efficiency and effectiveness with

which NNSA and its nuclear weapons laboratories and production

facilities have implemented technology development partnerships with

nonfederal entities and (2) the advantages and disadvantages of CRADAs.2

The act also mandated that we provide an assessment of the

administrator’s report within 30 days of its issuance. In response to this

mandate, we briefed your offices on the NNSA report, issued on April 16,

2001.3

 (See app. I for the report’s highlights.) We also obtained data on

technology partnerships at NNSA’s laboratories and production facilities

in addition to that presented in NNSA’s report.

As agreed with your offices, this report provides information on (1) the

trends in the technology development partnerships used and funding made

available by DOE and private partners for each type of partnership and

(2) NNSA’s views of the advantages and disadvantages of CRADAs, along

with options that NNSA suggested for maintaining or increasing current

financial and management support for CRADAs.

 1

The Technology Transfer Initiative was renamed the Technology Partnership Program in

fiscal year 1998.

2

NNSA was established in 2000 to consolidate responsibility for overseeing DOE’s nuclear

nonproliferation and nuclear weapons missions, including its stockpile stewardship

program.

3

Report to Congress on Technology Partnerships With Non-federal Entities Within the

National Nuclear Security Administration During Fiscal Year 2000.
Page 3 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

In recent years, NNSA’s laboratories and production facilities have

substantially revised their approaches to technology development

partnerships: They have reduced their use of CRADAs and the provision of

technical assistance to small businesses while entering into more

agreements fully funded by private partners. The number of CRADAs at

NNSA facilities, which peaked at 639 in fiscal year 1995, subsequently

declined by more than 60 percent as dedicated funding for technology

partnerships was gradually eliminated. NNSA laboratory managers told us

that because the dedicated funding generally has not been replaced with

NNSA research program funds, their laboratories have either prematurely

terminated many CRADAs or required the private partners to fully fund the

work. NNSA facilities also are negotiating fewer new CRADAs—they

entered into only 21 CRADAs during the first 6 months of fiscal year 2001;

in comparison, they entered into 240 new CRADAs in fiscal year 1995.

Similarly, technical assistance for small businesses, funded by the

Technology Partnership Program, has declined by more than 70 percent

between fiscal years 1995 and 2000. In contrast, NNSA facilities have

increased work-for-other and technology licensing activities, which are

funded by private businesses. Overall, NNSA’s and private partners’

support of technology partnerships has dropped from $390 million in fiscal

year 1995 to $175 million in fiscal year 2000 and to $81 million in the first 6

months of fiscal year 2001.

NNSA officials and laboratory managers identified various advantages and

disadvantages of collaborative research under a CRADA. In particular,

CRADAs can leverage NNSA’s research funds with additional private

funding, scientists, and equipment that extend NNSA’s research

capabilities. CRADAs also have enabled NNSA’s laboratories to maintain

core competencies in research and manufacturing and recruit and retain

key scientists challenged by interesting research projects. However,

CRADAs require NNSA’s laboratories to share control over the scope of

the research, project time frames, and intellectual property rights; and

they may divert research funds to projects with only secondary benefits to

NNSA’s core mission. NNSA laboratory managers identified two

alternatives—establishing an advocate within NNSA to facilitate funding

for CRADAs and setting aside a small portion of research funding

specifically to provide initial support for mission-related CRADAs—that

would increase NNSA’s current management and financial support for

CRADAs and potentially increase the number of agreements.

Results in Brief
Page 4 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Technology development partnerships are key elements of the technology

transfer program of each NNSA laboratory and production facility. NNSA

laboratory and facility managers told us that they have primarily used the

following types of partnerships:

• CRADAs: An NNSA laboratory or production facility and private

partner(s) agree to collaborate on a research project that is consistent

with DOE’s mission and has a potential impact on U.S. economic

competitiveness. The NNSA laboratory or production facility and its

private partner(s) contribute personnel, services, facilities, equipment,

intellectual property, and/or other resources to the CRADA project. The

private partner(s) may also provide funding, in-kind (noncash)

contributions, and other resources directly beneficial and specifically

identifiable and necessary in the performance of the project. However,

NNSA and its laboratory or production facility are not allowed to transfer

funds to the private partner(s). At a minimum, DOE retains a

nonexclusive, nontransferable, irrevocable license to use any invention

developed under the CRADA on behalf of the U.S. government. The private

partner has the option to choose an exclusive license for a pre-negotiated

field of use for any inventions developed by the NNSA laboratory or

production facility under the CRADA.

• Technical assistance for small businesses: In response to section

3135(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993,

NNSA’s laboratories and production facilities have provided technical

assistance to small businesses.

• Work-for-other agreements: An NNSA laboratory or production facility

agrees to conduct a defined scope of work or list of tasks, and the private

partner pays for the entire cost of the project. While intellectual property

rights are negotiable, the private sponsor typically retains title rights to

any inventions.

• Cost-shared procurement contracts: An NNSA laboratory or

production facility and private partner(s) agree to collaborate to develop

technologies or computer codes for Defense Program mission

requirements. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has used these

contracts for the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative.

• Technology licensing agreements: An NNSA laboratory or production

facility grants a business an exclusive or nonexclusive license to use its

intellectual property in return for a licensing fee and/or royalties.

Background
Page 5 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

• User facility agreements: An NNSA laboratory or production facility

permits outside organizations to use its unique research equipment and/or

facilities to conduct research. The private organization pays the full cost of

using research equipment or facilities and retains title rights to any

intellectual property.

In response to the phasing out of dedicated funding for partnerships,

NNSA’s laboratories and production facilities have reduced their CRADAs

and technical assistance to small businesses while entering into more

agreements that are fully funded by the business partners. The total

number of CRADAs at NNSA laboratories and production facilities has

declined by more than 60 percent, from a high of 639 in fiscal year 1995 to

244—including only 21 new CRADAs—in the first 6 months of fiscal year

2001. During this period, DOE’s funding for CRADAs dropped even more—

from $222 million to $19 million. Similarly, technical assistance for small

businesses dropped from about 1,700 actions that assisted small

businesses in fiscal year 1995 to 136—including only 59 new assistance

agreements—in the first 6 months of fiscal year 2001. While these types of

partnerships have declined, work-for-other agreements and technology

licenses, which require no DOE funds, grew substantially. (Table 4 in app.

II provides partnership data by fiscal year for each NNSA facility.)

Table 1 shows that the number of active CRADAs at the NNSA laboratories

and production facilities grew rapidly in the early 1990s and then dropped

by more than half through the first 6 months of fiscal year 2001. This trend

reflects a similar pattern in the growth and decline of DOE’s dedicated

funding for technology partnerships. Sandia National Laboratories has

entered into more CRADAs than any other NNSA laboratory. (See table 5

in app. II.) In fiscal year 1995, when CRADA activity peaked, Sandia had

254 active CRADAs—40 percent of all NNSA CRADAs. Sandia participated

in 153 CRADAs (44 percent of all CRADAs) in fiscal year 2000 and 120

CRADAs (about 50 percent of all CRADAs) in the first half of fiscal year

2001. The number of CRADAs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

has dropped even more—from 159 in fiscal year 1995 to 26 in the first two

quarters of fiscal year 2001. Lawrence Livermore has shifted its emphasis

from using CRADAs with private partners to using procurement contracts

with its contractors to develop new technologies important for its mission,

according to laboratory officials.

NNSA Laboratories

and Production

Facilities Have

Reduced Partnership

Activities Not Fully

Funded by Private

Partners
Page 6 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 1: CRADA Activity and Funding at NNSA Laboratories and Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second Quarter of

Fiscal Year 2001

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Number of CRADAs

Newly executed 21 104 177 237 240 137 102 103 113 50 21

Ongoing 6 23 96 211 399 494 380 312 281 298 223

Total 27 127 273 448 639 631 482 415 394 348 244

Source of funding support

DOEb$2.8 $24.4 $89.5 $157.6 $222.4 $172.0 $87.1 $69.7 $68.5 $35.4 $19.4

Private partners 4.4 56.0 94.9 143.2 167.2 147.5 170.5 186.0 175.7 139.6 61.4

Total $7.2 $80.4 $184.4 $300.7 $389.6 $319.5 $257.6 $255.7 $244.2 $175.0 $80.8

a

Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b

DOE funding support includes the Technology Transfer Initiative, the Technology Partnership

Program, and research program funds. The fiscal year 2001 funding is DOE’s total fiscal year

commitment for existing CRADAs.

Sources: NNSA laboratories and production facilities and DOE’s Institutional and Joint Programs

Division.

Figure 1 shows funding sources for CRADAs at NNSA laboratories and

production facilities for fiscal years 1991 through 2000. As figure 1 and

table 1 show, CRADA expenditures at NNSA’s laboratories and production

facilities peaked in fiscal year 1995. In that year, DOE contributed

$222 million, including $205 million in Technology Partnership Program

funding, and private partners contributed $167 million in direct and in-kind

support for CRADA activities. As DOE’s dedicated funding for technology

partnerships declined, the proportion of private partners’ direct and inkind contributions increased and has constituted more than half of all

CRADA funding since fiscal year 1997. In the first two quarters of fiscal

year 2001, DOE contributed $19 million and private partners contributed

$61 million in direct and in-kind support for CRADA activities. (See table 6

in app. II for CRADA funding at individual NNSA facilities.)
Page 7 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Figure 1: Sources of Funding for CRADAs at NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities, Fiscal Years 1991 Through 2000

Note: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory could not provide data on the value of partners’ inkind support. Other NNSA facilities estimated partners’ in-kind support based on their planned

contributions.

Source: GAO’s analysis of NNSA laboratories and production facilities data.

Table 2 shows the extent to which NNSA’s laboratories and production

facilities used the other primary types of technology development

partnerships. Generally, partnerships that relied on DOE funds have

decreased, while those predominantly funded by businesses have grown.

For example, technical assistance for small businesses, which was
Page 8 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

primarily funded by DOE’s Technology Partnership Program, dropped

sharply—from about 1,700 actions that assisted small businesses in fiscal

year 1995 to about 500 in fiscal year 2000. In contrast, work-for-other

agreements, which are wholly funded by businesses, grew substantially

from 209 agreements in fiscal year 1995 to 987 agreements in fiscal year

2000. Similarly, technology licensing agreements have greatly increased

during this period. (See tables 7, 8, and 9 in app. II for each NNSA facility’s

participation in each of these partnerships.) User facility agreements,

which provide access to unique NNSA experimental research equipment

and facilities, increased from 103 in fiscal year 1995 to 165 in fiscal year

1998 and then decreased to 96 agreements in fiscal year 2000. Businesses

have provided more direct funding for work-for-other agreements than for

any of the other types of partnerships. (See table 10 in app. II.)

Table 2: Trends in the Other Primary Types of Partnerships at NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991

Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year

Type of partnership 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Technical assistance for small

businesses b b 630 1,622 1,722 1,322 908 669 560 490 136

Work-for-other agreementsc94 108 94 154 209 313 569 692 802 987 788

Cost-shared procurement contractsd000 0 0 004444

Technology licenses 33 52 87 213 300 503 600 669 764 844 938

User facilities agreements 12 17 22 69 103 119 141 165 94 96 51

a

Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b

In response to section 3135(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993,

DOE’s Defense Programs established the Small Business Initiative to facilitate the transfer of

technology to small businesses.

c

Includes only agreements with nonfederal industrial partners.

d

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory used a cost-shared procurement contract for its

Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative/PathForward program to develop advanced computational

capabilities for simulating nuclear weapons testing and predicting the performance, safety, and

reliability of these weapons.

Sources: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.

NNSA officials and laboratory managers identified various advantages and

disadvantages of collaborative research under a CRADA. (See table 3.) An

advantage of collaborative research under a CRADA is often accompanied

by a disadvantage. For example, the ability to leverage research funding,

staff, and equipment can be offset by concerns over a CRADA’s relevance

to mission objectives and the risk inherent in sharing control over the

scope of the research, project time frames, and intellectual property.

CRADAs Offer Both

Advantages and

Disadvantages
Page 9 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of CRADAs at NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities

Advantages Disadvantages

• Involves multiple partners and a wider range of technical

disciplines to address technical challenges of mutual interest.

• Leverages NNSA laboratory resources by using partners’

scientists, equipment, and funding to extend research and

development capability.

• Enables NNSA laboratories and production facilities to

maintain core competencies in research and manufacturing.

• Aids in the recruitment and retention of talented staff by

exposing NNSA scientists to a broader range of technical

challenges.

• Improves the competitive position of U.S. businesses.

• Provides NNSA laboratories with access to companies’

proprietary technology.

• Results in additional industry requests and funding for

laboratory expertise and services and long-term research and

development partners.

• Can be used to bring laboratory inventions to the marketplace

by providing “seed money” to develop commercial

applications.

• CRADAs compete with DOE’s mission research for funding

support and laboratory resources. Without DOE’s funding,

private partners are reluctant to enter into CRADAs.

• NNSA’s stockpile stewardship program has established

schedules for NNSA’s laboratories to complete work on—such

as the W76 stockpile life extension program by 2007.

Laboratory research managers are hesitant to commit any

funding and resources that might be needed to complete critical

stockpile stewardship projects.

• Some of the CRADAs negotiated in the mid-1990s were

primarily designed to improve the competitive position of a U.S.

industry with few benefits for the NNSA mission. As a result,

they diverted DOE resources away from stockpile stewardship

and NNSA’s other primary missions.

• An NNSA laboratory typically has less control over the scope of

work and product delivery time frames for CRADAs than for

procurement contracts.

• CRADAs generally take more time to execute than other types

of agreements or contracts because the statement of work,

funding, and intellectual property rights must be negotiated.

Sources: NNSA headquarters and regional officials, NNSA laboratory managers, and Technology

Transfer: Benefits of Cooperative R&D Agreements (GAO/RCED-95-52, Dec. 16, 1994).

Each of the NNSA laboratories we visited provided examples of successful

CRADAs for both the laboratory and the CRADA partner(s). For example,

in 1997, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, and Lawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory (a DOE energy science laboratory) entered into a CRADA with

a consortium of microelectronics manufacturers to develop extreme

ultraviolet lithography equipment for making next-generation computer

chips with enhanced speed and memory. Consortium members are

providing $250 million to develop this technology, which is also important

for developing advanced computational capabilities that NNSA needs for

its nuclear stockpile stewardship program.

Technology transfer officials at the NNSA laboratories noted that CRADAs

have enhanced their laboratories’ research by, for example, bringing

together a wide range of scientific disciplines to address technical

problems or providing NNSA scientists with access to advanced
Page 10 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

technology or manufacturing processes. Sandia officials generally

preferred a CRADA to a work-for-others agreement because CRADA

partners actively participate in the research. Sandia officials told us that

the Technology Partnership Program had been an important catalyst for

initiating CRADAs because it was the laboratories’ primary source of

financial support in the early stages of the CRADA project before

researchers could demonstrate that the CRADA would directly benefit a

specific DOE program.

However, some DOE managers have questioned the value of certain

CRADAs—particularly some related to the Technology Transfer Initiative

in the mid-1990s—stating that those CRADAs had used scarce resources

for projects not closely tied to NNSA’s mission. Furthermore, negotiating

and approving the terms of a CRADA could take more than 1 year to

complete in the early 1990s. According to Sandia National Laboratories’

data, this time has been substantially reduced—in fiscal year 2000,

CRADAs were processed from initiation to final approval in 86 days, on

average, including an average of 4 days for DOE’s review and approval.

Laboratory officials attributed this improved efficiency to the use of a

standardized format for these agreements and the common practice of

amending existing CRADAs to broaden the scope of work in lieu of

negotiating a new agreement. In several cases, Sandia used blanket or

“umbrella” CRADAs to combine a number of different projects with the

same partner into a single agreement.

NNSA laboratory managers identified three primary options for providing

financial and management support for CRADAs:

• Continue to rely primarily on laboratory research managers to determine

whether participating in a CRADA effectively supports their mission

research. In addition to research funds, NNSA’s laboratories have used

other DOE funds, including their “laboratory-directed research and

development” funds and Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative funds,

to support certain CRADAs.4

 DOE has contributed $19.4 million for active

CRADAs at NNSA laboratories and production facilities in fiscal year 2001.

 4

Section 3135 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993 authorized the use of

laboratory-directed research and development funds to support CRADAs, provided they

meet certain administrative requirements.
Page 11 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

• Set aside a small portion of research funding specifically to provide initial

support for mission-related CRADAs until they show sufficient potential

benefits that program managers would be willing to provide financial

support.

• Establish an advocate within NNSA responsible for facilitating funding for

CRADAs.

The laboratory managers noted that the advocate’s office could be

combined with one of the two funding options. A senior official at NNSA

headquarters stated that the two funding options were reasonable.

However, the senior official preferred to assign responsibility for

facilitating CRADAs to a senior office within NNSA without giving it

responsibility for advocacy.

We provided DOE with a draft of this report for its review and comment.

NNSA’s Institutional and Joint Programs Division generally agreed with

the draft report. NNSA also provided comments to improve the report’s

technical accuracy, which we incorporated as appropriate.

To obtain trend data on technology development partnerships, we asked

officials at NNSA and its laboratories to identify the primary types of

technology partnerships that they have used with private entities. We then

developed a data collection instrument to obtain participation and funding

data from NNSA’s three nuclear weapons laboratories and three of its

production facilities from fiscal year 1991 through the second quarter of

fiscal year 2001. To help ensure consistency across locations, we worked

with officials from these laboratories and facilities to establish uniform

definitions and resolve any discrepancies. In addition, we (1) interviewed

NNSA officials at DOE headquarters and DOE’s Albuquerque and Oakland

Operations Offices and (2) visited Lawrence Livermore National

Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National

Laboratories to obtain the views of administrators and scientists about

their laboratories’ participation in and funding of technology development

partnerships.

To identify the advantages and disadvantages of CRADAs, we interviewed

NNSA officials at DOE headquarters and obtained the views of laboratory

administrators and scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,

Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories. We

also interviewed executives of four businesses that participated in at least

Agency Comments

Scope and

Methodology
Page 12 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

one CRADA with an NNSA laboratory to obtain their perspective about

CRADAs. We conducted our review from January 2001 through May 2001

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We

did not independently verify the data provided by NNSA’s laboratories and

production facilities.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy, the

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested

parties. We will make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me

at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report were Richard Cheston,

Sandra Davis, and Timothy Minelli.

Jim Wells

Director, Natural Resources

 and Environment
Appendix I: NNSA’s Report on Technology

Development Partnerships

Page 13 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

NNSA’s report entitled Report to Congress on Technology Partnerships

With Non-federal Entities Within the National Nuclear Security

Administration During Fiscal Year 2000 primarily examined CRADA

activities at its laboratories and production facilities. The report stated

that with the termination of the Technology Partnership Program’s

dedicated funding, CRADA partnerships will obtain either financial

support from individual DOE research programs—ensuring that the

project is more clearly linked to DOE’s mission—or full funding from the

private sector partner. NNSA stated that more than 200 of its 348 CRADAs

supported its core missions in fiscal year 2000 and pointed to CRADAdeveloped technologies that benefited both NNSA and its private partners.

For example, a CRADA used NNSA advanced laser technology to develop

an improved laser shot peening process to make indentations that reduce

fatigue in critical metal parts, such as jet engine fan blades and nuclear

waste disposal containers. According to NNSA, the absence of dedicated

funding could also result in fewer CRADAs that provide only secondary, or

spinoff, benefits for its core mission. A separate NNSA report discussed

technical assistance for small businesses, which also was cut back as the

Technology Partnership Program was phased out.5

NNSA reported that CRADAs are advantageous because they can leverage

its laboratories’ resources and bring to bear the expertise of several

partners to address technical challenges. CRADAs also allow for more

flexibility in the treatment of intellectual property than do other types of

partnership agreements. NNSA noted that some laboratory personnel and

private sector partners are skeptical about using CRADAs because they

believe that negotiations take longer than necessary.

Although the congressional mandate directed NNSA to recommend

actions that would make CRADAs more effective in supporting its mission,

NNSA made no recommendations.

 5

See Report to Congress on Small Business Participation in National Nuclear Security

Administration Activities (Feb. 2001).

Appendix I: NNSA’s Report on Technology

Development Partnerships
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 14 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 4: Active Technology Development Partnerships With Nonfederal Entities at NNSA Laboratories and Production

Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year

Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

CRADAs 0 13 50 96 159 161 118 83 66 47 26

Technical assistance for small businesses b b 0 3 15 41 19 10 2 0 0

Work for othersc74 75 55 80 104 110 192 192 276 299 309

Cost-shared procurementsd0 0 00 0 0 0 4 4 4 4

Technology licenses eee 100 158 239 260 290 312 324 331

User facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Los Alamos National Laboratory

CRADAs 11 37 65 124 175 165 132 134 130 116 83

Technical assistance for small businesses b b 22 75 180 85 29 0 0 0 0

Work for othersc20 20 25 21 14 39 50 61 74 81 83

Technology licenses 13 21 34 38 41 49 58 65 97 115 140

User facilities 12 17 22 45 60 47 58 54 31 43 19

Sandia National Laboratories

CRADAs 11 55 123 195 254 253 193 150 154 153 120

Technical assistance for small businesses b b 0 302 393 322 292 233 257 210 93

Work for othersc0 0 0 22 42 80 126 183 263 351 327

Technology licenses 8 16 32 49 77 178 240 273 313 362 424

User facilities 0 0 0 3 24 56 66 89 45 33 29

Kansas City Plant

CRADAs 0 0 0 5 21 32 30 24 26 24 12

Technical assistance for small businesses b b 0 297 269 140 128 92 74 60 42

Work for othersc0 0 0 0 4 12 25 27 16 14 11

Technology licenses 0 0 0 1 1 3 6 6 6 6 5

User facilities 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 4 4 3

Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

CRADAs 5 22 35 28 29 18 8 23 17 7 2

Technical assistance for small businesses b b 608 943 860 730 433 334 225 217 0

Work for othersc0 13 14 31 40 66 167 221 169 240 57

Technology licenses 12 15 21 25 23 34 36 35 36 37 38

User facilities 0 0 0 21 18 13 15 17 12 16 0

Pantex Plant

CRADAs 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

Technical assistance for small businesses b b 02 5 4 7 0 2 3 1

Work for othersc 0 0 00 5 6 9 8 4 2 1

User facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 15 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Fiscal year

Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

All NNSA facilities

CRADAs 27 127 273 448 639 631 482 415 394 348 244

Technical assistance for small

businesses b b 630 1,622 1,722 1,322 908 669 560 490 136

Work for othersc 94 108 94 154 209 313 569 692 802 987 788

Cost-shared procurementsd 0 0 00 0 0 0 4 4 4 4

Technology licenses 33 52 87 213 300 503 600 669 764 844 938

User facilities 12 17 22 69 103 119 141 165 94 96 51

a

Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b

In response to section 3135(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993,

DOE’s Defense Programs established the Small Business Initiative to facilitate and encourage the

transfer of technology to small businesses.

c

Includes only agreements with nonfederal industrial partners.

d

Includes contracts for the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative/PathForward Program. Costshared procurement agreements under the Federal Acquisition Regulation were used to expedite

research and development contracts.

e

Data were not readily available.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 16 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 5: Active CRADAs at NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second Quarter of

Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year

Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs 0 13 40 52 66 28 30 11 14 5 2b

Continuing CRADAs 0 0 10 44 93 133 88 72 52 42 24

Subtotal 0 13 50 96 159 161 118 83 66 47 26

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs 8 31 33 69 68 39 26 45 36 14 1

Continuing CRADAs 3 6 32 55 107 126 106 89 94 102 82

Subtotal 11 37 65 124 175 165 132 134 130 116 83

Sandia National Laboratories

Newly executed CRADAs 8 38 69 83 65 45 33 30 52 27 17

Continuing CRADAs 3 17 54 112 189 208 160 120 102 126 103

Subtotal 11 55 123 195 254 253 193 150 154 153 120

Kansas City Plant

Newly executed CRADAs 0 0 0 5 16 11 8 7 10 4 1

Continuing CRADAs 0 0 0 0 5 21 22 17 16 20 11

Subtotal 0 0 0 5 21 32 30 24 26 24 12

Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

Newly executed CRADAs 5 22 35 28 24 13 5 10 1 0 0

Continuing CRADAs 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 13 16 7 2

Subtotal 5 22 35 28 29 18 8 23 17 7 2

Pantex Plant

Newly executed CRADAs 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Continuing CRADAs 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Subtotal 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

All NNSA facilities

Newly executed CRADAs 21 104 177 237 240 137 102 103 113 50 21

Continuing CRADAs 6 23 96 211 399 494 380 312 281 298 223

Total 27 127 273 448 639 631 482 415 394 348 244

a

Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b

Lawrence Liverermore subsequently entered into three more CRADAs in the first 3 days of April

2001.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 17 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 6: Sources of Funding for CRADAs at NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the

Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory

Technology Partnership

Program $0 $1.6 $22.8 $30.9 $40.5 $34.9 $13.6 $2.1 $1.0 $0 $0

Other DOE sourcesb0 0 0.6 2.2 2.1 2.7 1.8 2.2 2.2 2.3 1.0

Funding from partner(s) 0 0 0 1.9 3.2 2.4 12.4 28.6 31.3 20.9 2.8

In-kind support from

partner(s)c dd d d d d d d d d d

Subtotal $0 $1.6 $23.4 $35.0 $45.8 $40.0 $27.8 $32.9 $34.5 $23.2 $3.8

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Technology Partnership $0.2 $4.3 $10.3e$25.0e$41.7 $32.9 $13.2 $14.0 $15.6 $2.6 $0

Other DOE sources (planned)b1.4 2.2 1.8 4.7 7.3 12.0 13.4 10.4 12.2 10.9 5.7

Funding from partner(s) 1.2 6.1 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.6 0.5

In-kind support from

partner(s)c

1.2 5.7 14.1 36.0 42.7 46.6 43.4 42.5 46.2 35.1 20.4

Subtotal $4.0 $18.3 $26.5 $66.3 $93.2 $93.4 $71.9 $69.2 $76.3 $51.2 $26.6

Sandia National Laboratories

Technology Partnership

Program $0 $8.0 $32.0 $71.0 $94.0 $65.0 $25.0 $24.0 $21.0 $3.4 $0

Other DOE sourcesb0.2 2.5 4.0 6.5 8.0 11.3 12.3 9.5 9.9 11.8 11.6

Funding from partner(s) 0 4.4 5.8 10.6 10.6 12.1 27.2 32.8 30.1 38.2 13.6

In-kind support from

partner(s)c

0.5 13.2 44.1 79.0 94.6 76.9 77.9 73.3 61.9 41.4 23.0

Subtotal $0.7 $28.1 $85.9 $167.1 $207.2 $165.3 $142.4 $139.6 $122.9 $94.8 $48.2

Kansas City Plant

Technology Partnership

Program $0 $0 $0.5 $1.6 $3.0 $3.9 $3.5 $2.2 $3.1 $1.2 $0

Other DOE sourcesb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.7 2.9 1.1

Funding from partner(s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0

In-kind support from

partner(s)c

0 0 0 1.6 3.0 3.9 3.5 2.2 3.1 1.2 1.1

Subtotal $0 $0 $0.5 $3.2 $6.0 $7.8 $7.0 $4.6 $7.0 $5.5 $2.2

Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

Technology Partnership

Program $1.0 $5.8 $17.5 $15.7 $25.8 $8.9 $4.2 $5.3 $2.8 $0.3 $0

Other DOE sources dd d d d d d d d d d

Funding from partner(s) 0 0.3 0 0.1 0.6 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

In-kind support from

partner(s)c

1.5 26.3 30.6 13.3 10.7 3.4 4.1 4.0 0.7 0 0

Subtotal $2.5 $32.4 $48.1 $29.1 $37.1 $12.3 $8.4 $9.4 $3.5 $0.3 $0
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 18 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Fiscal year

Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Pantex Plant

Technology Partnership

Program $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

Other DOE sourcesb0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 0 0

Funding from partner(s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

In-kind support from

partner(s)c

0 0 0 0 0.3 0.3 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.3 $0.6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0

All NNSA facilities

Technology Partnership

Program $1.2 $19.7 $83.1 $144.2 $205.0 $145.6 $59.5 $47.6 $43.5 $7.5 $0

Other DOE sourcesb1.6 4.7 6.4 13.4 17.4 26.3 27.5 22.1 25.0 27.9 19.4

Funding from partner(s) 1.2 10.8 6.1 13.2 15.9 16.4 41.6 64.0 63.8 61.9 16.9

In-kind support from

partner(s)c

3.2 45.2 88.8 129.9 151.3 131.1 128.9 122.0 111.9 77.7 44.5

Total $7.2 $80.4 $184.4 $300.7 $389.6 $319.4 $257.5 $255.7 $244.2 $175.0 $80.8

a

Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b

Primarily includes research funds. Some CRADAs at NNSA laboratories have used laboratorydirected research and development funds.

c

Planned in-kind contribution by nonfederal partner(s).

d

Data were not readily available.

e

Planned Technology Partnership Program funding. Actual data were not readily available.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 19 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 7: Active Agreements to Provide Technical Assistance to Small Businesses at NNSA Laboratories and Production

Facilities, Fiscal Year 1993 Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year

Facility 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 0 3 15 41 19 10 2 0 0

Continuing agreements 0 b b bbbb 0 0

Subtotal 0 3 15 41 19 10 2 0 0

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 22 65 129 36 18 0 0 0 0

Continuing agreements 0 10 51 49 11 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 22 75 180 85 29 0 0 0 0

Sandia National Laboratories

Newly executed agreements 0 280 287 232 198 153 175 131 29

Continuing agreements 0 22 106 90 94 80 82 79 64

Subtotal 0 302 393 322 292 233 257 210 93

Kansas City Plant

Newly executed agreements 0 297 269 140 128 92 74 60 29

Continuing agreements 0 0 b bbbbb 13

Subtotal 0 297 269 140 128 92 74 60 42

Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

Newly executed agreements 513 747 600 454 362 248 156 180 0

Continuing agreements 95 196 260 276 71 86 69 37 0

Subtotal 608 943 860 730 433 334 225 217 0

Pantex Plant

Newly executed agreements 0 2 5 4 7 0 2 3 1

Continuing agreements 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 0 2 5 4 7 0 2 3 1

All NNSA facilities

Newly executed agreements 535 1,394 1,305 907 732 503 409 374 59

Continuing agreements 95 228 417 415 176 166 151 116 77

Total 630 1,622 1,722 1,322 908 669 560 490 136

Note: In response to section 3135(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993,

DOE’s Defense Programs established the Small Business Initiative to facilitate and encourage the

transfer of technology to small businesses.

a

Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b

Data were not readily available.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 20 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 8: Active Work-for-Others Agreements at NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the

Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year

Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements bbbbbbbbbb b

Continuing agreements bbbbbbbbbb b

Subtotal 74 75 55 80 104 110 192 192 276 299 309

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 14 11 13 8 8 22 38 39 42 35 16

Continuing agreements 6 9 12 13 6 17 12 22 32 46 67

Subtotal 20 20 25 21 14 39 50 61 74 81 83

Sandia National Laboratories

Newly executed agreements 0 0 0 13 21 39 54 93 152 155 68

Continuing agreements 0 0 0 9 21 41 72 90 111 196 259

Subtotal 0 0 0 22 42 80 126 183 263 351 327

Kansas City Plant

Newly executed agreements bbbb 3 10 18 18 12 11 2

Continuing agreements bbbb 127943 9

Subtotal bbbb 4 12 25 27 16 14 11

Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

Newly executed agreements bbbbbbbbbb b

Continuing agreements bbbbbbbbbb b

Subtotal 0 13 14 31 40 66 167 221 169 240 57

Pantex Plant

Newly executed agreements 0 0 0 0 5 4 9 4 3 2 1

Continuing agreements 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 1 0 0

Subtotal 0 0 0 0 5 6 9 8 4 2 1

All NNSA facilities

Newly executed agreements bbbbbbbbbb b

Continuing agreements bbbbbbbbbb b

Total 94 108 94 154 209 313 569 692 802 987 788

Note: Includes only agreements with nonfederal industrial partners.

a

Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b

Data were not readily available.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 21 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 9: Active Licenses of NNSA Laboratory and Production Facility Technology, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second

Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year

Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed licenses bbb 36 57 81 64 49 35 33 13

Continuing licenses bbb 64 101 158 196 241 277 291 318

Subtotal bbb 100 158 239 260 290 312 324 331

Los Alamos National Laboratory

Newly executed licenses 6 9 12 6 5 15 11 11 38 30 11

Continuing licenses 7 12 22 32 36 34 47 54 59 85 129

Subtotal 13 21 34 38 41 49 58 65 97 115 140

Sandia National Laboratories

Newly executed licenses 2 8 17 17 27 102 64 38 49 57 38

Continuing licenses 6 8 15 32 50 76 176 235 264 305 386

Subtotal 8 16 32 49 77 178 240 273 313 362 424

Kansas City Plant

Newly executed licenses 0 0 0 1 0 2 3 1 0 1 1

Continuing licenses 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 5 6 5 4

Subtotal 0 0 0 1 1 3 6 6 6 6 5

Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

Newly executed licenses 4 4 9 7 7 14 3 7 2 4 1

Continuing licenses 8 11 12 18 16 20 33 28 34 33 37

Subtotal 12 15 21 25 23 34 36 35 36 37 38

All NNSA facilities

Newly executed licenses 12 21 38 67 96 214 145 106 124 125 64

Continuing licenses 21 31 49 146 204 289 455 563 640 719 874

Total 33 52 87 213 300 503 600 669 764 844 938

Note: Pantex did not have any technology licenses in effect between fiscal years 1991 and 2001.

a

Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b

Data were not readily available on the number of continuing licenses.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 22 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 10: Funding Provided by Nonfederal Entities for Technology Development Partnerships With NNSA Laboratories and

Production Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001a

Lawrence Livermore

National Laboratory

 CRADAs $0 $0 $0 $1.9 $3.2 $2.4 $12.4 $28.6 $31.3 $20.9 $2.8

 Work for others 4.1 4.6 4.0 15.5 31.8 20.6 16.4 43.8 70.5 19.6 9.2

 Cost-shared contracts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.1 11.2 12.8 4.0

 Technology licenses 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 1.1 1.3 2.3 2.6 2.2 3.6 b

 User facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Los Alamos National Laboratory

 CRADAs 1.2 6.1 0.3 0.6 1.5 1.9 1.9 2.3 2.3 2.6 0.5

 Work for others b b 8.8 4.1 8.6 12.7 16.8 13.3 16.7 14.8 4.3

 Technology licenses 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.3 0.4 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.0

 User facilities 0 0.2 1.6 1.6 1.1 0.7 2.3 0.8 1.0 0.6 0

Sandia National Laboratories

 CRADAs 0 4.4 5.8 10.6 10.6 12.1 27.2 32.8 30.1 38.2 13.6

 Work for others 0 0 0 0.2 14.0 14.3 17.1 22.7 24.6 29.7 15.4

 Technology licenses 0 0.1 0 0.1 0.4 0.7 1.7 0.9 1.2 2.3 1.6

 User facilities bbbbbbbb bb b

Kansas City Plant

 CRADAs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.1 0.2 0

 Work for others bbbb 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.1

 Technology licenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0.1 0

 User facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oak Ridge Y-12 Plant

 CRADAs 0 0.3 0 0.1 0.6 0 0.1 0.1 0 0 0

 Work for others 0 1.2 0.5 0.9 0.5 2.2 7.0 10.9 8.0 2.7 0.4

 Technology licenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.1 0 0

 User facilities ccc 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0

Pantex Plant

 CRADAs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

 Work for others 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0 0

 User facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All NNSA facilities

 CRADAs $1.2 $10.8 $6.1 $13.2 $15.9 $16.4 $41.6 $64.0 $63.8 $61.9 $16.9

 Work for others $4.1 $5.8 $13.3 $20.7 $55.3 $50.3 $58.0 $91.8 $120.9 $67.7 $29.4

 Cost-shared contracts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8.1 $11.2 $12.8 $4.0

 Technology licenses $0.5 $0.7 $0.5 $0.9 $1.6 $2.3 $4.5 $4.4 $4.4 $7.3 $2.6

 User facilities $0 $0.2 $1.6 $1.7 $1.1 $0.7 $2.3 $0.9 $1.0 $0.6 $0
Appendix II: The Technology Development

Activities of NNSA’s Laboratories and

Production Facilities

Page 23 GAO-01-568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Note: Technical assistance for small businesses is excluded because small businesses do not

contribute funding.

a

Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b

Data are not available.

c

Not applicable.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.

(360095)

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