a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Subcommittee on Energy 

and Water Development, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of 

Representatives

April 2004 FEDERAL 

RESEARCH

Information on DOE’s 

Laboratory-Directed 

R&D Program

GAO-04-489
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-489

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at 

(202) 512-3841 or mittala@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-489, a report to the

Subcommittee on Energy and Water 

Development, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of Representatives 

April 2004

FEDERAL RESEARCH

Information on DOE's LaboratoryDirected R&D Program 

• By law, when DOE conducts R&D for other federal agencies and uses a 

laboratory contractor to carry out the tasks, DOE must recover from the 

other agency all costs, including LDRD, DOE owes its contractor in 

performing the work. 

• DOE has issued a departmental order and clarifying memoranda and 

guidance to ensure LDRD program compliance with statutory 

requirements and congressional direction. For example, the Secretary of 

Energy’s April 2002 guidance requires that agencies funding work at its 

laboratories be notified about the LDRD program, including the 

laboratory’s indirect-cost rate and an estimate of the associated cost. 

According to senior budget, legal, and research program officials at six 

federal agencies that fund work at the DOE laboratories, inclusion of 

funding for the LDRD program as an indirect cost does not limit their 

agency’s ability to comply with statutory or appropriations requirements. 

• Managers at the four DOE laboratories that primarily conduct nuclear 

weapons and environmental management R&D told us that LDRD is vital 

for recruiting and retaining top scientists, while managers at the five 

Office of Science laboratories said that LDRD plays an important, but 

less vital, role in recruiting and retaining top scientists. 

• From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, DOE’s contractoroperated laboratories spent a total of $1.8 billion, or an average of $296 

million per year, on LDRD. DOE accounted for 84 percent and the 

Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies, through their 

payments to DOE, accounted for 12 percent of the federal support for 

the LDRD program in fiscal year 2003. 

Federal Funding Support for LDRD, Fiscal Year 2003 

Dollars in millions 

Laboratory LDRD funding Total operating funds Percentage LDRD

Argonne $21.0 $481.1 4.4

Brookhaven 7.6 413.1 1.8

Idaho 19.8 701.0 2.8

Lawrence Berkeley 9.8 403.3 2.4

Lawrence Livermore 64.3 1,071.6 6.0

Los Alamos 94.8 1,771.0 5.4

Oak Ridge 15.4 667.5 2.3

Pacific Northwest 17.2 450.6 3.8

Sandia 97.4 1,696.7 5.7

Total $347.3 $7,655.9 4.5

Source: DOE laboratories. 

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) 

contractor-operated laboratories 

perform mission-related research 

and development (R&D) for DOE 

and other federal agencies. In 1992, 

DOE established the LaboratoryDirected Research and 

Development (LDRD) program, 

under which laboratory directors 

may allocate funding to scientists 

to conduct worthy independent 

research. DOE allows participating 

laboratories to support their LDRD 

programs by including a charge of 

up to 6 percent of the total project 

cost in the indirect costs for R&D 

performed for DOE and other 

federal agencies. 

GAO was asked to address 11 

specific questions on DOE’s LDRD 

program regarding: 

• DOE’s statutory authority for 

charging other federal 

agencies for LDRD, 

• DOE’s policies and procedures 

for ensuring departmental 

compliance with statutory 

requirements and committee 

report direction, 

• the extent to which DOE 

believes the LDRD program is 

a necessary tool for recruiting 

and retaining laboratory 

scientists, and 

• the sources and amounts of 

LDRD funding that each 

laboratory received from fiscal 

year 1998 through fiscal year 

2003. 

In commenting on the draft report, 

DOE agreed with its factual 

accuracy. 
Page i GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Contents

Letter 1

Questions Posed by the Subcommittee and GAO’s Responses 4

Agency Comments 18

Scope and Methodology 19

Appendixes

Appendix I: Funding Data for DOE Laboratories Participating in the 

LDRD Program, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 21

Appendix II: Funding Data for DOE Laboratories Participating in the 

LDRD Program, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 29

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Energy 40

Tables Table 1: LDRD Funding from Federal Sources by DOE Laboratory, 

Fiscal Year 2003 2

Table 2: Federal Funding Sources of Each DOE Laboratory’s R&D 

and Other Operating Costs, Fiscal Year 2003 17

Table 3: Federal Sources of LDRD Funding at Each DOE 

Laboratory, Fiscal Year 2003 18

Table 4: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Argonne National 

Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 21

Table 5: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Brookhaven 

National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 22

Table 6: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Fiscal Years 

2000 and 2001 23

Table 7: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 23

Table 8: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 

2001 24

Table 9: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 25

Table 10: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 26

Table 11: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 27

Table 12: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Sandia National 

Laboratories, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 28
Contents

Page ii GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 13: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Argonne National 

Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 29

Table 14: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Brookhaven 

National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 30

Table 15: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Fiscal Years 

2002 and 2003 31

Table 16: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Berkeley 

National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 32

Table 17: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 

2003 33

Table 18: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Los Alamos 

National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 34

Table 19: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 35

Table 20: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Pacific Northwest 

National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 37

Table 21: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Sandia National 

Laboratories, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 38
Contents

Page iii GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Abbreviations

CFO Chief Financial Officer

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOT Department of Transportation

INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

LDRD Laboratory-Directed Research and Development

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NIH National Institutes of Health

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

R&D research and development

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

April 30, 2004 Letr

The Honorable David L. Hobson

Chairman

The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

In fiscal year 2003, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) contractor-operated 

laboratories spent more than $7.9 billion on research and development 

(R&D) and other operating expenses that supported the department’s 

national nuclear security, energy resources, environmental management, 

and science programs. To foster scientific excellence at these laboratories, 

the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and other laws have 

authorized DOE laboratories to use a reasonable amount of laboratory 

funds to conduct employee-suggested R&D projects selected at the 

discretion of the laboratory directors.1

 Subsequently, the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 authorized the contractor-operated 

laboratories that receive funding for national security programs to perform 

laboratory-directed R&D of a creative and innovative nature to maintain 

the vitality of the laboratories’ defense-related scientific disciplines.

In fiscal year 1992, DOE formalized its laboratories’ self-initiated R&D 

programs by establishing the Laboratory-Directed Research and 

Development (LDRD) program. Under this program DOE’s contractoroperated laboratories may fund their LDRD programs by including up to 6 

percent of an R&D project’s total cost in its indirect cost of doing the work 

for DOE, other federal agencies, and nonfederal organizations. Total

1

Among the other laws that DOE cites as general authority for LDRD are the Energy 

Reorganization Act of 1974, which created the Energy Research and Development 

Administration to carry out general basic research activities; the Energy Research and 

Development Administration Appropriation Authorization for Fiscal Year 1977 (codified at 

42 U.S.C. § 5817a), which provided authority for any government-owned, contractoroperated laboratory to use a reasonable amount of its operating budget to fund employeesuggested projects up to the pilot stage of development; and the Department of Energy 

Organization Act, which placed the Energy Research and Development Administration’s 

authorities under DOE and directed DOE to carry out an energy research program. See DOE 

Order 413.2A.
Page 2 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

funding support for the LDRD program grew from $223 million in fiscal 

year 1992 to $356 million in fiscal year 2003.2

Table 1 shows the nine contractor-operated laboratories that participated 

in DOE’s LDRD program in fiscal year 2003. These laboratories include 

three within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that 

primarily conduct R&D for the nuclear weapons program, five within 

DOE’s Office of Science that primarily perform basic research, and one 

within the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology that primarily 

performs research for the environmental management program. DOE’s 

appropriations are the source of more than 80 percent of the LDRD funding 

each year; the remaining funds are reimbursements to DOE that are paid 

out of appropriations of other federal agencies, or private organizations, to 

cover the costs DOE incurred in performing work for these entities, 

primarily through DOE’s Work for Others program. 

Table 1: LDRD Funding from Federal Sources by DOE Laboratory, Fiscal Year 2003

Source: DOE and DOE laboratories.

Note: DOE’s Ames Laboratory did not spend funds for LDRD in fiscal year 2003, although it has had a 

small LDRD program in prior years.

The nine DOE laboratories select LDRD projects on their scientific and 

technical merits without regard to funding origin, provided that the 

projects will support DOE’s national security mission. DOE requires that 

2

All funding totals in this report are in fiscal year 2003 dollars.

Dollars in millions

Laboratory Responsible DOE program office LDRD funding 

Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science $21.0

Brookhaven National Laboratory Office of Science $7.6

Idaho National Engineering and

 Environmental Laboratory

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and 

Technology

$19.8

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Office of Science $9.8

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory NNSA $64.3

Los Alamos National Laboratory NNSA $94.8

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Office of Science $15.4

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Office of Science $17.2

Sandia National Laboratories NNSA $97.4
Page 3 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

LDRD projects focus on the advanced study of scientific or technical 

problems, experiments directed toward proving a scientific principle, or 

early analysis of experimental facilities or devices. For example, scientific 

knowledge gained from Sandia’s LDRD project that created crystalline 

silicotitanate, a material capable of separating highly radioactive cesium 

from other wastes, led to the development of new technology that could 

substantially reduce the costs of cleaning up radioactive waste at DOE’s 

Hanford site. Similarly, Lawrence Berkeley’s LDRD project on advanced 

neutron generation has aided in the development of a portable neutron 

generating device that can be used for detecting explosives and nuclear 

materials that could be hidden in different types of containers. This device 

could eventually be used to screen luggage at airports or steel shipping 

containers at port facilities.

Generally, scientists at each laboratory independently propose projects 

that peer review panels and laboratory managers prioritize on the basis of 

their assessment of potential scientific and technical merit and potential 

strategic impact. The laboratory directors use these assessments to make 

their selections. In accordance with DOE policy, the selected LDRD 

projects are reviewed and approved by DOE. In general, projects cost from 

$100,000 to $300,000 and last 2 to 3 years. 

This report addresses the 11 specific questions that you asked us on DOE’s 

LDRD program. To answer these questions, we examined the authorizing 

legislation, DOE’s order and memoranda implementing the LDRD program, 

LDRD program documents, and financial data for each of the nine 

contractor-operated laboratories that participate in the LDRD program. We 

also interviewed cognizant officials at DOE and its nine laboratories. In 

addition, we interviewed officials at the Departments of Defense (DOD), 

Homeland Security (DHS), and Transportation (DOT); the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the National Institutes of 

Health (NIH), within the Department of Health and Human Services; and 

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Through their payments to 

DOE, these federal agencies were among the primary sources of LDRD 

funding generated from R&D performed for non-DOE agencies from fiscal 

years 1998 through 2003. We conducted our review from July 2003 through 

March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards.
Page 4 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Questions Posed by the 

Subcommittee and 

GAO’s Responses

Question 1: Does DOE have statutory authority that specifically 

authorizes it to spend the funds appropriated to other federal agencies and 

use those funds for LDRD?

GAO Response

The Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 

1999 authorizes DOE to conduct R&D at DOE facilities for “other 

departments and agencies of the government . . .”3

 The act requires that 

when DOE conducts R&D for other agencies, it impose a charge to recover 

its costs of conducting the work.4

 The charge must include both direct 

costs that DOE incurs in carrying out the work and all associated overhead 

costs.5

 When DOE assesses the charge to recover its costs, the ordering 

agency transfers amounts from its appropriation to DOE to pay the 

assessed charge.

An interagency transaction, like that authorized by section 7259a, is not 

unlike a contractual transaction. Because of a statutory prohibition on 

transferring funds between two appropriations, federal agencies require 

specific statutory authority, like section 7259a, to engage in interagency 

transactions. In other words, federal agencies require statutory authority to 

contract with each other. Section 7259a permits other federal agencies to 

contract with DOE for R&D. When other agencies transfer amounts to DOE 

to pay the charge that DOE assesses under section 7259a, and DOE uses 

those amounts to defray the costs it incurred in carrying out the work for 

the other agency, DOE is not “spending” funds appropriated to another 

agency any more than a private vendor with whom the agency had 

contracted for services “spends” federal appropriations when it uses 

amounts received in payment from the federal agency to defray its costs of 

doing business. As in a contractual transaction, when a federal agency 

transfers amounts to DOE in payment of the section 7259a charge, the 

funds transferred become DOE funds and are available for the same 

purposes and uses as the other amounts in the DOE appropriation account 

to which they are credited.

3

Pub. L. No. 105-261, div. C, tit. XXXI, § 3137, 112 Stat. 2248 (1998), codified at

42 U.S.C. § 7259a.

4

42 U.S.C. § 7259a(b).

5

42 U.S.C. § 7259a(b)(1)(A), (B).
Page 5 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

When DOE agrees to carry out R&D for another agency and conducts the 

work in one of its laboratories, DOE asks the contractor who operates its 

laboratory to undertake the R&D tasks. In that case, the cost to DOE of 

having its contractor conduct these tasks is a direct cost that DOE is 

required by section 7259a to include in the charge that it assesses the other 

agency.6

 The other agency is not paying DOE’s contractor; in fact, the other 

agency has no legal relationship with DOE’s contractor. 

The amount DOE owes its contractor for this work is determined by the 

terms of the contract that DOE has with its contractor. Included in the 

amounts DOE pays its contractor is an amount for LDRD. The National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 requires DOE to pay its 

laboratory contractors an amount for LDRD, not to exceed 6 percent of the 

amount that DOE pays to the contractor for national security activities.7

 

Consequently, DOE is not “using” funds appropriated to other federal 

agencies for LDRD. LDRD is a cost that DOE incurs, both statutorily and 

contractually, whenever the laboratory’s contractor performs work for 

DOE. When another agency asks DOE to conduct R&D on its behalf, and 

DOE, in performing that work incurs an LDRD cost, DOE, under section 

7259a, properly includes that cost in calculating what it will charge the 

ordering agency. Just as a private vendor factors its costs of doing business 

into the price it charges for services rendered, DOE, under section 7259a, 

must factor its costs of doing business, including LDRD, into the amount it 

charges other agencies. That DOE might use monies properly transferred 

from another agency to defray the LDRD amount it owes its laboratory 

contractor does not mean that DOE is “using” another agency’s funds for 

LDRD any more than a private vendor is using a federal agency’s 

appropriation when it applies amounts paid by a federal agency for services 

rendered to defray its costs of doing business.

6

42 U.S.C. § 7259a(b)(1)(A).

7

Pub. L. No. 101-510, div. C., tit. XXXI, § 3132, 104 Stat. 1832 (1990), codified at

50 U.S.C. § 2791(c) (formerly cited as 42 U.S.C. § 7257a(c)). 
Page 6 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Question 2: Congressional appropriations laws must comply with defense 

and domestic firewalls in Senate budget resolutions adopted by Congress. 

What mechanism has DOE had in place to ensure that funds appropriated 

for defense purposes are used only for defense activities and that funds 

appropriated for domestic purposes are used only for activities in support 

of those domestic agencies? This question applies to both LDRD 

conducted with DOE funds and LDRD conducted with funds received from 

other federal agencies.

GAO Response

As discussed in our response to question 1, DOE’s funds support the LDRD 

programs at participating DOE contractor-operated laboratories—not the 

appropriations of other agencies. Under the terms of the agreement when 

another federal agency asks DOE to perform work on its behalf, the agency 

agrees to reimburse DOE all costs that DOE incurs in performing the work. 

In funding and carrying out LDRD, DOE and the laboratories must comply 

with statutory requirements imposed on them. For example, DOE and its 

contractor-operated laboratories are required to comply with the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998,8

 which requires that when 

DOE uses its appropriation for nuclear weapons activities to pay for LDRD, 

the LDRD must support projects in DOE’s national security mission and 

when DOE uses its environmental restoration, waste management, or 

nuclear materials and facilities stabilization appropriation to pay for LDRD, 

the LDRD must support projects in these mission areas. In addition, the 

Homeland Security Act of 2002 specifically directs that when DHS orders 

work from DOE’s laboratories, the laboratories must use the associated 

LDRD funds only for purposes that benefit DHS missions.9

 

Officials at each of the laboratories we visited told us that, because LDRD 

promotes cutting-edge science and technology, much of the R&D 

conducted is basic research that, by definition, can result in applications 

that benefit both defense and civilian agencies. Thus, projects proposed 

with the intention of supporting a defense mission may lead to crosscutting applications that benefit Homeland Security or other civilian 

agencies. Specifically, officials at DOE’s weapons laboratories cited 

8

Pub. L. No. 105-85 (1997), codified at 50 U.S.C. § 2792 (formerly cited as 42 U.S.C. § 7257c).

9

Pub. L. No. 107-296 (2002), codified at 6 U.S.C. § 189(f).
Page 7 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

examples in sensor research for identifying traces of radiological and 

biological agents that had benefited both the nuclear nonproliferation and 

homeland security missions. They also mentioned LDRD projects that had 

applications for the NIH’s cancer research programs, as well as DHS and 

DOE. 

Question 3: Which federal agencies, in addition to DOE, have a similar 

process whereby up to 6 percent of funds appropriated to the agency (or 

any other federal agency) may be diverted to purposes other than those for 

which the Congress appropriated the funds?

GAO Response

NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, operated by the California Institute of 

Technology, is the only federal laboratory we identified that includes an 

assessment on the work performed for other federal agencies to support a 

laboratory-directed R&D program. In fiscal year 2003, the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory Director’s R&D Fund received about $91,000 through an 

assessment of .025 percent on all projects over $250,000 performed for 

other federal agencies—primarily DOD. The Director’s R&D Fund also 

received $3.5 million from NASA’s research directorates that was pro rated 

on the basis of their expected R&D funding at the Jet Propulsion 

Laboratory. Similar to DOE’s LDRD program, the Director’s R&D Fund is 

designed to promote innovative science and new technology. The fund also 

encourages collaborative work with the California Institute of Technology, 

other universities, other federal laboratories, and industry. The Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory’s director awards funding to research projects on 

the basis of peer review of their scientific merits. 

The Air Force’s Lincoln Laboratory, operated by the Massachusetts 

Institute of Technology, has a Directed Defense Research and Engineering 

program. However, unlike LDRD, the Defense budget provides the Directed 

Defense Research and Engineering program with about $25 million 

annually through a direct appropriation from the Congress—Lincoln does 

not include an assessment in its indirect-cost rate to finance its program.10 

Similar to DOE’s LDRD program, Lincoln Laboratory’s director awards 

funding to research projects on the basis of peer review of their scientific 

10Although Lincoln Laboratory also performs R&D for the Federal Aviation Administration, 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA, funding from these 

agencies does not support Lincoln’s Directed Defense Research and Engineering program.
Page 8 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

merits. The Army and the Navy also reported that their In-house Laboratory 

Independent Research program is fully funded by their appropriations.

NRC’s Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, operated by the 

Southwest Research Institute, also has a small self-initiated research 

program. However, NRC’s center does not receive funding support from 

other federal agencies. 

Question 4: What mechanisms has DOE had in place to ensure that the 

department fully complies with all statutory and report language in 

appropriations bills for itself and other federal agencies when DOE spends 

funds on their behalf?

GAO Response

DOE has issued a departmental order for the LDRD program and clarifying 

memoranda and guidance to ensure departmental compliance with 

statutory requirements and congressional direction in committee reports. 

These include the following:

• The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 established 

an annual 6-percent funding limit on LDRD. Subsequently, DOE’s Order 

413.2A established departmental requirements for the LDRD program, 

and each laboratory establishes a fixed rate for the LDRD assessment 

each year that ensures compliance with the 6-percent funding limit. 

DOE officials told us that the department does not need to link the 

LDRD funding from non-DOE sources to specific LDRD projects 

because it treats LDRD as an indirect cost that, under cost accounting 

standards, must be pooled with other LDRD funds and not tracked back 

to a specific funding source. The DOE officials added that LDRD costs 

are charged to all laboratory customers at the same rate and are 

considered a normal cost of doing business.

• The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 limited the 

use of LDRD funds (1) originating from nuclear weapons funding to 

LDRD projects that support DOE’s national security mission and (2) 

originating from environmental restoration, waste management, or 

nuclear materials and facilities stabilization for LDRD projects that 

support these missions. DOE and laboratory LDRD managers told us 

that they have achieved the act’s funding requirements through (1) the 

identification of areas of emphasis that are likely to benefit DOE’s 

national security and environmental management missions in each 
Page 9 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

laboratory’s annual LDRD program plan and its calls for proposals and 

(2) the laboratory’s LDRD manager’s and DOE site office’s review of 

proposals recommended for funding. 

• The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 also 

required that DOE report to the Congress on the extent to which the 

LDRD Program has met the objective of supporting R&D with long-term 

application to national security. DOE’s most recent report to the 

Congress stated that, in fiscal year 2003, the laboratories spent about 

$356 million for LDRD, of which defense customers, through 

reimbursement to DOE, provided $243 million and nondefense 

customers, through reimbursement to DOE, provided $113 million.11 

DOE concluded that about $268 million of the LDRD funding supported 

projects expected to benefit the defense and national security missions 

and about $283 million of the LDRD funding supported projects 

expected to benefit the nondefense mission areas.

• The Conference Report accompanying the Energy and Water 

Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directs that (1) 

when accepting funds from another federal agency for work, DOE notify 

the agency in writing how much will be used for LDRD and (2) the 

Secretary of Energy affirm each year that all LDRD projects support 

R&D that benefits the sponsoring agencies’ programs and are consistent 

with their appropriations acts.12 On April 30, 2002, the Secretary of 

Energy issued a memorandum to the Under Secretary for Nuclear 

Security and the Under Secretary for Energy, Science and Environment 

that provided guidance directing that all DOE agreements to perform 

R&D for other federal agencies provide notice about each participating 

laboratory’s LDRD program, including (1) the applicable indirect-cost 

rate, (2) an estimate of the associated cost, and (3) an explanation of the 

LDRD program’s purpose. Furthermore, each agreement to perform 

work states that DOE will conclude that, by approving the agreement 

and providing funds, the agency acknowledges that LDRD benefits the

11This total reflects funding from all sources, including nonfederal organizations.

12H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-258, at 110 (2001).
Page 10 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

agency and is consistent with its appropriation requirements.13 DOE 

officials told us that the DOE site office responsible for the laboratory 

typically sends this notification to the program manager or contracting 

officer at the sponsoring agency. 

• The Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires that DHS funds are not to 

be expended for LDRD unless such activities support DHS missions. On 

February 28, 2003, the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of 

Homeland Security entered into a Memorandum of Agreement that 

establishes a framework for DHS to access the capabilities of DOE’s 

national laboratories and production facilities. On April 21, 2003, DOE’s 

Deputy Secretary issued DOE Notice 481.1A, Reimbursable Work for 

Department of Homeland Security, which provided information on the 

process by which DHS would place orders for reimbursable work 

activities at the DOE laboratories. The DOE notice includes provisions 

that DOE notify DHS of LDRD charges in the cost proposals and that 

DHS acknowledge the benefits of LDRD prior to final approval. DHS has 

set up centers at each of the DOE laboratories to facilitate its access, 

and DOE and DHS are still formalizing their working relationship.

Question 5: To what extent does the leadership of federal agencies that 

give funds to DOE for its laboratories to conduct R&D on their behalf fully 

understand that up to 6 percent of the funds may be diverted under DOE’s 

LDRD program to purposes that have nothing to do with the purpose for 

which the Congress originally appropriated the funds? Please detail the 

written notifications that DOE has issued in response to the requirement in 

the Conference Report for the Energy and Water Development 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 that DOE notify federal agencies in 

writing how much of their funds may be diverted to LDRD. 

13DOE’s pricing policy states: “Consistent with the Department of Energy’s (DOE) full cost 

recovery policy, DOE collects, as part of its standard indirect cost rate, a Laboratory 

Directed Research and Development (LDRD) cost. Based on the amount of funds accepted 

for this project, $___ represents an estimated amount that will be used for LDRD efforts. 

The Department of Energy believes that LDRD efforts provide opportunities in research that 

are instrumental in maintaining cutting-edge science capabilities that benefit all of the 

customers at the laboratory. The Department will conclude that by providing funds to DOE 

to perform work, you acknowledge that such activities are beneficial to your organization 

and consistent with appropriations acts that provide funds to you.”
Page 11 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

GAO Response

Senior officials at each of the six federal agencies we contacted stated that 

their offices were aware that the DOE laboratories included a charge of up 

to 6 percent for LDRD in the costs they are required to reimburse DOE. 

Specifically, the senior officials in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer 

(CFO) and/or the Office of General Counsel at each agency told us that the 

LDRD program’s inclusion as an indirect cost does not limit their ability to 

comply with their agency’s statutory or appropriations requirements. 

Similarly, none of the research managers and/or contracting officers at 

these agencies expressed concern about the LDRD program or its funding 

method.14

In December 2003, at the direction in the Conference Report accompanying 

the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 

2002, DOE sent the CFOs of 22 agencies information about the LDRD 

program and its inclusion in the indirect costs for R&D performed at DOE 

laboratories. Specifically, DOE provided each CFO office, with the 

exception of DHS, with a copy of the Secretary of Energy’s April 2002 

memorandum, an explanation of how the LDRD program is funded, and a 

description of DOE’s notification process.15 However, DOE did not identify 

a point of contact within each agency’s Office of the CFO or provide the 

CFO’s room number, and senior officials in the CFO’s office at 

Transportation and NRC told us that they did not receive DOE’s 

information even though they were the appropriate point of contact. These 

officials commented on the LDRD program after we provided them with 

copies of the DOE materials. 

Similarly, research managers and/or contracting officers responsible for 

funding R&D at DOE’s contractor-operated laboratories for DOD, DHS, 

DOT, NASA, NIH, and NRC had differing levels of knowledge about how the 

LDRD program functioned and how it is funded. For example, the DOD, 

14NRC officials did not express concern about the LDRD program and its funding; however, 

they suggested that an agency could better determine whether LDRD benefits its mission if 

DOE improved its notification procedure by annually (1) providing a single notification 

signed by DOE’s CFO and (2) including information about LDRD activities at those 

laboratories where the agency funds work.

15DOE provided DHS’s CFO office with a copy of DOE Notice 481.1A regarding reimbursable 

work for DHS that included the February 28, 2003, Memorandum of Agreement between 

DOE and DHS, explaining how DHS work will be funded and conducted at DOE’s 

laboratories. 
Page 12 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

DHS, and NASA research managers we interviewed had detailed 

knowledge of the LDRD program. In contrast, research managers at DOT 

were less familiar with the LDRD program and how it is funded. They told 

us that this was mainly because the department funds relatively little R&D 

at the DOE laboratories and the decisions to use the DOE laboratories are 

made by the departmental agencies. 

Question 6: Please identify any instances when another federal agency 

has refused to pay the LDRD charge assessed by the DOE laboratories on 

work for other agencies, as well as any instances when the DOE 

laboratories have voluntarily waived assessment of the LDRD charge on 

funds received from another federal agency.

GAO Response

None of the officials at the six agencies we contacted cited any instances 

when their agencies have refused to reimburse DOE for the LDRD charge 

or expressed concern about the LDRD expense. In June 1998, DOE and NIH 

signed a Memorandum of Understanding that clarified the terms and 

conditions of NIH grants awarded to DOE laboratories.16 Among other 

things, the Memorandum of Understanding states that (1) the DOE 

laboratory contractor may be the awardee organization, (2) DOE will waive 

its 3-percent administrative overhead rate, and (3) while NIH awards will 

not include an allowance for LDRD, the DOE laboratories may recover 

LDRD costs from the total funding included in grants awarded to DOE 

laboratory contractors.

Cognizant officials at DOE and its laboratories told us that they are not 

aware of any instances in which a federal customer has objected to or 

stated that they would not reimburse DOE for the LDRD charge. The 

officials also did not identify any instances in which the DOE laboratories 

had not charged DOE for the LDRD portion of the work done on another 

agency’s behalf—either voluntarily or involuntarily. Managers at each of the 

nine DOE laboratories told us that their policy is to use the same indirect 

cost rate for all R&D and other operations performed at the laboratory.

16The requirements of the Secretary’s April 2002 memorandum regarding notification to 

other federal sponsors and their subsequent certifications that LDRD projects benefit their 

programs do not apply to grants performed under the June 1998 Memorandum of 

Understanding between NIH and DOE.
Page 13 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Question 7: On April 30, 2002, the Secretary of Energy issued revised 

LDRD guidance in response to direction provided in the Conference Report 

for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002. 

Subsequently, DOE’s National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and 

Office of Science issued more detailed guidance to their respective 

laboratories. What is the status of implementing the changes to the LDRD 

approval and reporting process as outlined in this guidance? Do these new 

procedures constitute a firewall between LDRD using defense 

appropriations and LDRD using nondefense appropriations, as some in 

DOE have claimed?

GAO Response

DOE has implemented changes to the LDRD approval and reporting 

process as outlined in the Secretary’s memorandum and the NNSA and 

Office of Science guidance. These changes include having a DOE official 

review and concur on all LDRD projects prior to approval by laboratory 

directors and requiring DOE field officials associated with each laboratory 

to certify annually that LDRD projects benefit the programs of the 

sponsoring agencies. When approving these projects, DOE does not 

distinguish whether the projects benefit defense or nondefense activities 

because, in its view, LDRD projects are new concepts that may benefit 

more than one area and therefore cannot be categorized in this manner. 

DOE officials’ role in approving proposed LDRD projects is to ensure that 

the projects support DOE’s national security mission. However, as stated 

earlier, DOE’s annual report identifies the amounts of LDRD funding it 

receives from defense and nondefense sponsors and the amounts of LDRD 

funding that support projects expected to have primary benefit to defense 

or nondefense mission areas. 

Question 8: Are the laboratories supplementing their funds for LDRD 

with funds designated for the Strategic Initiative?

GAO Response

None of the nine DOE laboratories has been supplementing funding for 

LDRD programs with other laboratory funds, such as Idaho National 

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory’s (INEEL) Strategic Initiative, 

according to officials of DOE’s Office of Inspector General; Office of 

Management Budget and Evaluation; Office of Science; NNSA; Office of 

Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology; and the nine laboratories. As 

stated earlier, DOE’s Order 413.2A prohibits DOE’s laboratories from using 
Page 14 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

LDRD funds on projects that will need additional non-LDRD funding to 

reach their goals. 

A May 2003 DOE Inspector General report cited possible misuse of INEEL’s 

Strategic Initiative Fund for LDRD projects.17 In response, DOE’s acting 

CFO conducted a review of the expenditures in question and determined 

that no funds were misused and INEEL had not exceeded its LDRD funding 

limit. The Inspector General accepted the CFO’s findings. 

Question 9: What does DOE do to ensure, in advance, that different 

laboratories do not undertake duplicative LDRD projects? What does DOE 

do to ensure that LDRD projects are not duplicative of research in other 

federal agencies or in universities?

GAO Response

DOE and its laboratories rely on the scientists, who submit proposals; 

members of peer review committees; and laboratory managers to ensure 

that LDRD projects do not duplicate research at other laboratories or 

universities. According to officials at the four laboratories we visited, the 

chances for duplication among LDRD projects are remote for several 

reasons. First, the NNSA laboratories (Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, 

and Sandia) coordinate their work to ensure there is no duplication. 

Second, peer review groups consisting of laboratory, DOE, industry, and 

university representatives involve themselves in project management and 

try to eradicate duplication or other potential wastes of resources. Third, 

science is a very competitive field, and scientists have strong incentives to 

conduct original research and publish or present the results of that 

research. Finally, because basic science explores fundamental principles, 

scientists may be looking at the same issue, for example, techniques for 

sensing ever smaller amounts of an element, but for different reasons or 

with different approaches. In addition, our September 2001 report 

concluded that the LDRD project-selection and review processes that are in 

place at the nine DOE laboratories are adequate to reasonably ensure 

compliance with DOE’s project-selection guidelines.18

17See DOE Office of Inspector General. Idaho National Engineering and Environmental 

Laboratory’s Strategic Initiative Fund, DOE/IG-0601 (Washington, D.C.: May 2003).

18U.S. General Accounting Office, National Laboratories: Better Performance Reporting 

Could Aid Oversight of Laboratory-Directed R&D Program, GAO-01-927 (Washington, 

D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001).
Page 15 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Question 10: To what extent does DOE believe that the LDRD program is 

still a necessary tool to recruit and retain scientists?

GAO Response

Officials at NNSA laboratories told us that LDRD remains a necessary tool 

to recruit and retain top scientists because their program work provides 

little opportunity for basic scientific research. Similarly, INEEL officials 

told us that LDRD plays a major role in attracting and retaining the most 

qualified scientists and engineers at their laboratory. In comparison, 

officials at Office of Science laboratories believe that LDRD is important 

for recruiting and retaining scientists; however, they noted its role is less 

essential for their laboratories because they primarily perform basic 

research. 

NNSA laboratory managers told us that LDRD is an essential tool for 

recruiting and retaining scientists for several reasons. As a recruiting tool, 

the LDRD program is vital because the mission of the NNSA laboratories—

to perform applied research to develop nuclear weapons technologies—

does not readily attract qualified new hires. The LDRD program has served 

as a stepping stone for the NNSA laboratories to attract and hire many 

scientists by supporting from nearly one-half to two-thirds of the post 

doctoral researchers at the laboratories. For example, one of the three 

LDRD program components at Los Alamos National Laboratory makes 

awards to research proposals specifically targeted at post-doctoral 

candidates. As a result, 262 (61 percent) of the 427 post-doctoral scientists 

charged substantial amounts of time to LDRD. According to NNSA 

laboratory managers, post-doctoral scientists who work at their 

laboratories are more likely to seek permanent employment at the 

laboratory, and LDRD projects provide opportunities for laboratory 

managers to evaluate the post-doctoral scientists for future employment. In 

some cases, the LDRD program also provides meaningful work 

opportunities at the NNSA laboratories while newly hired scientists wait to 

receive their security clearances. In addition, the LDRD program provides 

opportunities for collaboration with universities and other research 

organizations, thereby providing a pipeline for new employees. As a 

retention tool, LDRD provides scientists with funding to perform basic and 

applied research on the cutting edge of their field, improve their technical 

skills, and make scientific contributions in their fields.

INEEL managers told us that the LDRD program funded 55 percent of the 

post-doctoral candidates supported by the laboratory in fiscal year 2002. 
Page 16 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

The managers attributed about 40 percent of the scientists and engineers 

hired at INEEL in the past 4 years to investments in LDRD.

Managers at the five Office of Science laboratories told us that the LDRD 

program is important for their efforts to recruit and retain scientists. 

However, they noted that the LDRD program is less important to their 

laboratories than it is to the NNSA laboratories, because their laboratories 

mainly fund basic research. According to laboratories managers, it is basic 

research and the opportunity for technological advances—whether 

performed as LDRD or as program work—that attracts and maintains the 

interest of the top scientists. As a result, the Office of Science laboratories 

typically devote, at most, slightly over 4 percent of their R&D and other 

operating funds to LDRD each year and have substantially smaller LDRD 

programs than the NNSA laboratories. 

Question 11: How much has each of the nine DOE laboratories spent on 

LDRD from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, and which federal 

agencies’ funds have been used and in what amounts? 

GAO Response 

For the 6 years from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, DOE’s nine 

laboratories spent a total of $1.8 billion, or an average of $296 million per 

year, on LDRD. In fiscal year 2003, the laboratories received $7.7 billion 

from DOE and other federal agencies, through reimbursement to DOE, and 

spent $347 million, or 4.5 percent, on LDRD. Los Alamos National 

Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory accounted for $257 million, or 74 percent, of the LDRD 

funds. DOE, DOD, and the intelligence agencies have been the primary 

sources of LDRD funding, accounting for 96 percent of the federal support 

in fiscal year 2003.

Table 2 shows that the nine laboratories received $7.7 billion from DOE and 

other federal agencies for their R&D and other operating expenses in fiscal 

year 2003. Specifically, DOE and DOD provided $7.3 billion, or 96 percent, 

of the federal funding that the laboratories received. NIH, NRC, and NASA 

provided $190 million, or 2.5 percent, of the funding. DOT and DHS 

provided only $12.6 million and $9.4 million, respectively, for work at the 

DOE laboratories.
Page 17 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 2: Federal Funding Sources of Each DOE Laboratory’s R&D and Other Operating Costs, Fiscal Year 2003

Source: DOE laboratories.

Note: LDRD funding from non-DOE agencies refers to the LDRD portion of the indirect costs that 

these agencies reimbursed to DOE for work performed on their behalf. Totals may not add due to 

rounding.

a

Includes funding from the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies.

b

The laboratories began tracking DHS funding in fiscal year 2003.

c

Less than $1 million.

d

DHS provided a total of $412,000 to Sandia in fiscal year 2003. This funding is included in other 

federal sources because it was less than $1 million.

Table 3 shows that, in fiscal year 2003, the nine DOE laboratories allocated 

to LDRD $347 million, or 4.5 percent, of the $7.7 billion they received from 

DOE and other federal sources, through reimbursement to DOE. Los 

Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory accounted for $257 million, or 74 percent, 

of the $347 million. DOE’s appropriations accounted for $293 million, or 84 

percent, of the LDRD funding from federal sources, while $54 million, or 16 

percent, originated from other federal agencies, through reimbursement to 

DOE. DOD and the intelligence agencies accounted for $41 million, or 12 

percent. NIH, NRC, and NASA together accounted for $7.5 million, or 2 

percent.

Dollars in millions

Laboratory DOE DODa NIH NRC NASA DOT DHSb

Other 

agencies Total

Argonne $422.2 $25.5 $3.7 $12.6 $2.2 c c$14.8 $481.1

Brookhaven 379.3 1.4 10.7 8.9 5.7 c c6.9 413.1

Idaho 620.1 68.6 c5.6 c c c6.7 701.0

Lawrence Berkeley 341.4 9.8 38.6 c6.3 c c7.1 403.3

Lawrence Livermore 933.1 115.7 8.5 1.0 2.5 c6.5 4.3 1,071.6

Los Alamos 1,589.6 138.9 18.6 1.9 10.7 1.5 2.5 7.2 1,771.0

Oak Ridge 585.1 46.2 1.5 10.3 7.3 4.8 c12.2 667.5

Pacific Northwest 358.3 57.6 c7.2 c c c27.5 450.6

Sandia 1,291.4 358.2 1.0 22.1 3.0 6.3 d14.6 1,696.7

Total $6,520.5 $821.9 $82.6 $69.6 $37.7 $12.6 $9.0 $101.3 $7,655.9

Percentage of total 85.2 10.7 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.3 100.0
Page 18 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 3: Federal Sources of LDRD Funding at Each DOE Laboratory, Fiscal Year 2003

Source: DOE laboratories.

Note: LDRD funding from non-DOE agencies refers to the LDRD portion of the indirect costs that 

these agencies reimbursed to DOE for work performed on their behalf. Totals may not add due to 

rounding.

a

Includes funding from the Central Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies.

b

The laboratories began tracking DHS funding in fiscal year 2003. 

c

Less than $50,000.

Appendix 1 provides data on each laboratory’s total R&D spending and 

LDRD spending for DOE and other federal agencies, through 

reimbursement to DOE, for fiscal years 1998 through 2001, and appendix II 

provides more detailed data on each laboratory’s total R&D spending and 

LDRD spending by subagency for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The funding 

amounts for prior fiscal years are presented in fiscal year 2003 dollars.

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

written comments, DOE agreed with the report. (See app. III.) DOE also 

provided comments to improve the report’s technical accuracy, which we 

incorporated as appropriate. 

Dollars in millions

Laboratory DOE DODa NIH NRC NASA DOT DHSb

Other 

agencies Total

Percent 

LDRD

Argonne $18.2 $1.4 $0.1 $0.6 $0.1 c c $0.6 $21.0 4.4

Brookhaven 7.0 c 0.2 0.2 0.1 c c 0.1 7.6 1.8

Idaho 17.6 1.8 c 0.2 c c c 0.2 19.8 2.8

Lawrence Berkeley 8.3 0.2 1.0 c 0.1 c c 0.2 9.8 2.4

Lawrence 

Livermore 56.0 6.9 0.5 0.1 0.2 c 0.4 0.3 64.3 6.0

Los Alamos 85.1 7.4 1.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 94.8 5.4

Oak Ridge 13.3 1.1 c 0.3 0.2 0.1 c 0.3 15.4 2.3

Pacific Northwest 13.3 2.2 c 0.4 c c c 1.3 17.2 3.8

Sandia 74.4 20.3 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.4 c 0.8 97.4 5.7

Total $293.2 $41.3 $2.9 $3.1 $1.5 $0.6 $0.5 $4.2 $347.3 4.5

Percentage 84.4 11.9 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.2 100.0
Page 19 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Scope and 

Methodology

To assess DOE’s statutory authority for charging other federal agencies for 

LDRD, we researched and analyzed statutes and legislative histories and 

referred to principles of appropriations law. To identify laboratory-initiated 

research programs similar to LDRD at other federal agencies’ laboratories, 

we interviewed cognizant officials within DOD, DHS, DOT, NASA, NIH, and 

NRC. Through their payments to DOE, these federal agencies were among 

the primary sources of LDRD funding generated from R&D performed for 

non-DOE agencies from fiscal years 1998 through 2003. 

To examine DOE’s policies and procedures for ensuring that its 

laboratories spend LDRD funds in ways that benefit the requesting 

agencies’ programs and are consistent with their appropriation acts, we 

evaluated DOE’s implementing order and documents for the LDRD 

program and interviewed cognizant officials at DOE and obtained 

information from its nine contractor-operated laboratories regarding the 

actions they have taken to improve the program’s accountability. In 

addition, we contacted cognizant officials in the Office of the CFO and/or 

the Office of General Counsel in DOD, DOT, NASA, NIH, and NRC to 

determine whether the funding structure of the LDRD program presented 

issues for their compliance with statutory or appropriations requirements. 

These five agencies, through their reimbursements to DOE, were among 

the primary sources of LDRD funding at the nine DOE laboratories from 

fiscal years 1998 through 2003. We also contacted cognizant officials in the 

Office of the CFO and the Science and Technology Directorate in DHS 

because of its special relationship with DOE’s laboratories.

To assess whether the LDRD program is a necessary tool for recruiting and 

retaining laboratory scientists, we obtained information from cognizant 

officials at each of DOE’s nine laboratories about the role that LDRD plays 

in recruiting and retaining scientists and obtained documentation. We also 

reviewed laboratories’ information on the participation of post-doctoral 

scientists and others in LDRD research.

To provide data on the sources and amounts of LDRD funding, we obtained 

data from each laboratory on its operating and LDRD funds for fiscal year 

1998 through fiscal year 2003. Specifically, the laboratories provided 

financial data for each of DOE’s major program budgets and for each 

federal agency that, in a given year, funded more than $1 million in R&D 

through DOE’s Work for Others program. Because the laboratories’ prior 

fiscal year data were in nominal dollars, we converted their current dollars 

to constant fiscal year 2003 dollars using deflators for nondefense from the 
Page 20 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Office of Management and Budget’s Budget of the United States 

Government, Fiscal Year 2005, Historical Tables. We also obtained from 

key database officials responses to a series of questions focused on data 

reliability covering issues such as data entry access, quality control 

procedures, and the accuracy and completeness of the data. Follow-up 

questions were added whenever necessary. In addition, we reviewed all 

data provided by the laboratories, investigated all instances where we had 

questions regarding issues such as categories or amounts, and made 

corrections as needed. Based on this work, we determined that the 

financial data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our 

report. We did not assess the reliability of the fiscal year 1992 LDRD 

funding total, which was used for background purposes only.

As arranged with your offices, 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 the Secretary of 

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

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

In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

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, 

Carol Kolarik, Daren Sweeney, Doreen Feldman, and Hannah Laufe.

Anu K. Mittal

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 21 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Appendix I

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories Apendxies

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 1998 through 2001 ApendxiI

Table 4: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Argonne National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001

Source: Argonne National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 assessed for LDRD.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy $425.7 $13.1 $426.0 $16.7 $409.1 $15.3 $411.5 $18.0

Department of Defense 30.6 1.0 27.9 1.3 27.9 1.3 27.3 1.4

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 8.0 0.2 6.3 0.3 7.9 0.4 8.4 0.4

Department of State 1.9 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.9 0.1

Department of Health and 

Human Services b c b c b c 1.5 c

Environmental Protection 

Agency 1.4 c 1.1 c 1.2 c 1.2 0.1

Department of Agriculture 6.7 0.2 7.7 0.3 7.5 0.3 b c

Other federal agencies 7.1 0.3 7.6 0.4 7.7 0.4 12.0 0.6

Nonfederal sources 23.6 0.7 23.5 0.8 23.6 0.7 29.2 1.0

Total $505.1 $15.6 $501.6 $19.8 $486.3 $18.4 $493.0 $21.5
Appendix I

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 1998 through 2001

Page 22 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 5: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001

Source: Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 assessed for LDRD.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy $416.1 $2.6 $398.9 $4.6 $391.7 $5.5 $406.0 $5.0

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 2.3 c 3.1 c 8.2 c 13.8 c

Department of Health and 

Human Services 5.2 c 6.7 c 9.1 0.1 11.4 0.1

Department of State 6.7 c 5.8 c 5.0 c 7.0 c

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 8.6 0.1 8.2 0.1 8.9 0.2 6.6 0.1

Environmental Protection 

Agency 2.5 c 3.3 c 2.9 c 1.3 c

Department of Defense 3.2 c b c b c b c

Department of the Interior b c 1.1 c b c b c

Other federal agencies 3.5 c 3.5 c 1.6 c 1.9 c

Nonfederal sources 5.0 c 3.2 c 7.1 0.1 8.3 0.2

Total $453.1 $2.8 $433.9 $4.9 $434.4 $6.0 $456.3 $5.5
Appendix I

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 1998 through 2001

Page 23 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 6: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2000 

and 2001

Source: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.

Note: Data for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 were not readily available. All funding amounts are in fiscal 

year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year. 

Table 7: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $50,000 assessed for LDRD.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001

Total fundinga LDRD funding Total fundinga LDRD funding

Department of Energy $625.8 $3.0 $647.4 $20.9

Department of Defense 58.7 1.4 75.1 2.2

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9.4 0.2 6.7 0.3

Other federal agencies 3.4 0.1 3.8 0.1

Nonfederal sources 21.4 0.3 22.2 0.5

Total $718.7 $5.1 $755.2 $23.9

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy $291.4 $9.0 $300.4 $9.2 $310.3 $8.5 $326.4 $8.2

Department of Health and 

Human Services 18.4 0.6 20.4 0.6 22.0 0.6 32.9 0.8

Department of Defense 7.9 0.2 9.4 0.3 11.1 0.3 8.6 0.2

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 6.2 0.2 7.2 0.2 4.6 0.1 5.5 0.1

Environmental Protection 

Agency 4.9 0.2 5.1 0.2 5.1 0.1 5.0 0.1

Other federal agencies 2.5 0.1 3.2 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.4 b

Nonfederal sources 33.5 1.0 32.1 1.0 31.4 0.9 41.4 1.0

Total $364.9 $11.2 $377.7 $11.5 $386.4 $10.5 $421.2 $10.5
Appendix I

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 1998 through 2001

Page 24 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 8: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001

Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 assessed for LDRD.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy $845.8 $50.7 $823.7 $49.4 $762.1 $30.5 $816.2 $49.0

Department of Defense 65.5 3.9 81.5 4.9 79.5 3.2 65.8 3.9

Defense-related agencies 10.4 0.6 11.5 0.7 12.5 0.5 10.5 0.6

Department of Health and 

Human Services 6.3 0.4 6.2 0.4 6.4 0.3 5.4 0.3

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 3.4 0.2 3.5 0.2 3.7 0.1 2.1 0.1

Department of Transportation 3.2 0.2 1.8 0.1 b c 1.7 0.1

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 1.7 0.1 b c b c b c

Other federal agencies 2.9 0.2 4.4 0.3 5.1 0.2 4.8 0.3

Nonfederal sources 83.1 5.0 108.8 6.5 41.0 1.6 35.6 2.1

Total $1,022.5 $61.3 $1,041.4 $62.5 $910.4 $36.4 $942.2 $56.5
Appendix I

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 1998 through 2001

Page 25 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 9: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 

Source: Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 assessed for LDRD.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy $1,225.5 $67.0 $1,274.8 $72.1 $1,110.2 $43.3 $1,268.6 $71.2

Department of Defense 55.1 3.0 41.5 2.4 52.4 2.1 60.1 3.4

Defense-related agencies 23.0 1.2 28.8 1.6 25.5 1.1 33.8 1.9

Department of Health and 

Human Services 13.0 0.7 11.5 0.7 11.3 0.4 15.7 0.9

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 9.6 0.5 12.7 0.8 9.3 0.4 7.2 0.4

Department of Transportation 5.1 0.3 4.9 0.3 4.4 0.2 3.8 0.2

Department of State 1.9 0.1 2.3 0.1 2.5 0.1 2.8 0.1

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 3.4 0.2 3.3 0.2 2.7 0.1 2.2 0.1

Internal Revenue Service 2.5 0.1 b c b c b c

Department of Commerce 1.8 0.1 b c b c b c

Other federal agencies 1.3 0.1 1.6 0.1 0.6 c 0.5 c

Nonfederal sources 19.3 1.1 20.3 1.2 19.5 0.7 17.7 1.0

Total $1,361.3 $74.5 $1,401.7 $79.5 $1,238.4 $48.4 $1,412.4 $79.3
Appendix I

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 1998 through 2001

Page 26 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 10: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001

Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 assessed for LDRD.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy $587.8 $13.3 $578.6 $12.5 $509.4 $13.0 $510.1 $12.9

Department of Defense 27.3 0.8 31.1 0.7 32.4 0.8 30.1 0.8

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 13.7 0.3 11.8 0.2 9.7 0.2 7.5 0.2

Department of Transportation 11.0 0.1 9.8 0.1 8.7 0.1 6.3 0.1

Environmental Protection 

Agency 4.1 0.1 5.3 0.1 4.8 0.1 4.6 0.1

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 3.8 0.1 4.6 0.1 5.5 0.1 4.3 0.1

Department of Health and 

Human Services 3.0 c 2.8 c 2.5 c 1.5 c

U.S. Postal Service 9.0 0.1 7.4 0.1 2.5 c b c

National Institute of Standards 

and Technology 2.6 c b c b c b c

Agency for International 

Development 1.1 c b c b c b c

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 1.5 c 2.2 c 1.3 c b c

Other federal agencies 1.9 c 4.2 c 3.4 c 3.6 0.1

Nonfederal sources 17.0 0.6 20.5 0.6 27.3 0.7 30.7 0.7

Total $683.8 $15.5 $678.4 $14.6 $607.5 $15.2 $598.9 $15.0
Appendix I

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 1998 through 2001

Page 27 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 11: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001

Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 assessed for LDRD.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy $455.0 $11.3 $431.5 $12.2 $429.7 $10.9 $423.8 $12.6

Department of Defense 40.0 1.1 31.6 1.1 36.6 1.1 40.6 1.3

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 4.1 0.2 5.0 0.2 5.0 0.2 4.9 0.2

Environmental Protection 

Agency 2.1 0.1 2.3 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.2 c

Other federal agencies 9.7 0.4 10.0 0.5 11.8 0.6 12.1 0.7

Nonfederal sources b c 0.1 c 0.4 c 0.6 c

Total $510.9 $13.1 $480.3 $14.1 $484.9 $12.9 $483.1 $14.8
Appendix I

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 1998 through 2001

Page 28 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 12: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Sandia National Laboratories, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001

Source: Sandia National Laboratories.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 assessed for LDRD.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 1998 Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy $1,151.2 $65.8 $1,160.9 $67.6 $1,091.9 $40.2 $1,109.8 $57.7

Department of Defense 202.4 11.5 190.8 11.1 193.9 7.7 226.6 11.2

Defense-related agencies 34.9 2.0 33.7 2.0 37.9 1.5 36.0 1.8

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission 10.4 0.6 10.5 0.6 9.9 0.4 7.2 0.4

Department of Transportation 6.0 0.3 4.7 0.3 5.7 0.2 5.3 0.3

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 2.0 0.1 3.7 0.2 5.4 0.2 3.1 0.2

Department of the Interior b c b c 1.9 0.1 b c

Other federal agencies 7.2 0.4 11.3 0.7 10.9 0.4 10.9 0.5

Nonfederal sources 60.4 3.3 64.5 3.7 69.8 2.9 61.7 3.1

Total $1,474.6 $84.1 $1,479.9 $86.1 $1,427.2 $53.7 $1,460.6 $75.1
Page 29 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003 ApendxiI

Table 13: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Argonne National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

Source: Argonne National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy

Counter Intelligence $1.1 $0.1 $1.2 $0.1

Energy Assurance b c 3.5 0.1

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 43.2 1.8 41.3 2.0

Environmental Management 25.0 0.9 21.9 0.5

Fossil Energy 5.3 0.3 5.3 0.3

National Nuclear Security Administration 31.7 1.4 30.8 1.4

Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 84.7 4.1 79.2 3.9

Radioactive Waste Management 2.4 0.1 2.4 0.1

Science 228.7 8.9 232.7 9.6

Security 1.8 0.1 d d

DOE relatede b c 2.2 0.1

Other DOE sponsors 2.4 0.1 1.8 0.1

Department of Defense

Air Force 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.1

Army 14.5 0.7 14.2 0.7

Navy 2.7 0.1 3.0 0.2

Defense Nuclear Agency b c 5.7 0.3

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency b c 1.1 0.1

Other Defense agencies b c 0.1 c

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9.5 0.5 12.6 0.6

Department of Agriculture 7.6 0.3 6.3 0.2

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1.2 0.1 2.2 0.1

Environmental Protection Agency 1.4 0.1 1.7 0.1

National Institutes of Health 2.7 c 3.7 0.1

Department of the Interior 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1

Department of State 1.6 0.1 3.3 0.1

Other federal agencies 6.1 0.3 2.4 0.1

Nonfederal sources 40.9 1.2 36.3 1.4

Total $517.0 $21.3 $517.4 $22.4
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 30 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 in LDRD funding.

d

Includes Office of Security funding.

e

Includes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.

Table 14: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

Source: Brookhaven National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Includes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.

c

Less than $50,000 in LDRD funding.

d

Less than $1 million in total funding.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $6.2 $0.1 $5.8 $0.1

Environmental Management 37.8 0.4 38.5 0.7

National Nuclear Security Administration 30.1 0.2 32.1 0.6

Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 3.4 0.1 3.1 0.1

Science 288.7 5.4 260.4 4.9

DOE relatedb 29.1 0.1 36.1 0.6

Other DOE sponsors 1.5 c 3.3 0.1

Department of Defense d c 1.4 c

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7.3 0.2 8.9 0.2

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14.6 c 5.7 0.1

Environmental Protection Agency 1.5 c 1.1 c

National Institutes of Health 11.6 c 10.7 0.2

Department of State 7.2 c 3.1 0.1

Other federal agencies 2.7 c 2.8 c

Nonfederal sources 19.3 0.3 15.7 0.3

Total $461.2 $6.9 $428.7 $7.8
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 31 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 15: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 

and 2003

Source: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 in LDRD funding.

d

Includes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy

Counter Intelligence $1.6 $0.1 $1.5 $0.1

Energy Assurance b c 1.1 c

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 11.5 0.4 11.7 0.3

Environment, Safety, and Health b c 1.1 c

Environmental Management 470.1 14.8 476.2 13.5

Fossil Energy 3.3 0.1 2.7 0.1

Intelligence b c 1.1 c

National Nuclear Security Administration 61.2 2.1 59.0 1.8

Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 15.5 0.4 20.0 0.5

Science 5.9 0.2 7.4 0.2

Security 1.1 c 1.6 0.1

DOE relatedd 23.5 0.8 35.1 1.0

Other DOE sponsors 3.4 0.1 1.7 c

Department of Defense

Army 76.8 1.9 49.7 1.3

Navy b c 1.0 c

Other Defense agencies 11.0 0.4 17.8 0.4

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5.7 0.2 5.6 0.2

Other federal agencies 4.5 0.1 6.7 0.2

Nonfederal sources 19.3 0.3 21.7 0.4

Total $714.4 $21.9 $722.7 $20.2
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 32 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 16: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Includes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.

c

Less than $1 million in total funding.

d

Less than $50,000 in LDRD funding.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $30.7 $1.0 $30.0 $0.8

Environmental Management 6.7 0.2 4.2 0.1

Fossil Energy 7.0 0.2 6.9 0.2

National Nuclear Security Administration 4.4 0.1 6.1 0.2

Science 302.6 7.5 271.2 6.5

DOE relatedb 27.5 0.7 22.0 0.5

Other DOE sponsors c d 1.0 0.1

Department of Defense

Army 3.3 0.1 4.6 0.1

Navy 1.7 d c d

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 3.2 0.1 3.2 d

Other Defense agencies 2.2 0.1 2.0 0.1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 6.9 0.1 6.3 0.1

Environmental Protection Agency 4.4 0.2 4.2 0.1

National Institutes of Health 39.7 1.2 38.6 1.0

Other federal agencies 2.1 0.1 2.9 0.1

Nonfederal sources 34.0 1.0 38.2 0.9

Total $477.0 $12.6 $441.5 $10.7
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 33 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 17: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $6.3 $0.4 $6.1 $0.4

Environmental Management 42.8 2.6 50.6 3.0

National Nuclear Security Administration 689.0 41.3 691.5 41.5

Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology b c 1.6 0.1

Science 57.2 3.4 53.4 3.2

DOE relatedd 83.0 5.0 85.5 5.1

Other DOE sponsors 44.8 2.7 44.4 2.7

Department of Defense

Air Force 10.4 0.6 4.6 0.3

Army 17.3 1.0 20.6 1.2

Navy 13.0 0.8 8.4 0.5

Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 1.2 0.1 1.0 0.1

Office of the Secretary of Defense 6.1 0.4 6.2 0.4

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 11.9 0.7 13.2 0.8

Defense Intelligence Agency 2.6 0.2 1.9 0.1

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 13.5 0.8 22.8 1.4

National Security Agency 9.4 0.6 4.1 1.4

Other Defense agencies 0.5 c 1.9 0.1

Defense-related agencies 6.3 0.4 30.8 1.8

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1.1 0.1 b c

Department of State 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 3.4 0.2 2.5 0.2

Department of Homeland Security e e 6.5 0.4

National Institutes of Health 5.4 0.3 8.5 0.5

Other federal agencies 3.9 0.2 4.2 0.3

Nonfederal sources 29.7 1.8 22.1 1.3

Total $1,059.9 $63.6 $1,093.7 $65.6
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 34 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

c

Less than $50,000 in LDRD funding.

d

Includes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.

e

DHS began working with DOE’s laboratories in fiscal year 2003.

Table 18: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

Source: Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $18.1 $1.0 $15.9 $0.8

Environmental Management 102.2 5.7 89.2 4.8

National Nuclear Security Administration 1,296.1 72.3 1,329.8 71.2

Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 31.5 1.8 28.1 1.5

Science 78.9 4.4 67.6 3.6

DOE relatedb 44.6 2.5 43.6 2.3

Other DOE sponsors 11.9 0.7 15.4 0.8

Department of Defense

Air Force 11.9 0.7 8.1 0.4

Army 5.9 0.3 4.3 0.2

Navy 5.1 0.3 4.0 0.2

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 39.0 2.2 48.2 2.6

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 4.2 0.2 4.0 0.2

Missile Defense Agency 1.1 0.1 1.6 0.1

Research, Development, and Testing 6.3 0.4 6.7 0.4

Other Defense agencies 0.2 c 0.5 c

Defense-related agencies 39.4 2.2 61.4 3.3

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.1

Department of Transportation 5.2 0.3 1.5 0.1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 6.5 0.4 10.7 0.6

Department of State 4.9 0.3 5.7 0.3

National Institutes of Health 16.9 0.9 18.6 1.0

Department of Homeland Security d d 2.5 0.1

Other federal agencies 0.6 c 1.5 0.1

Nonfederal sources 19.3 1.1 23.5 1.3

Total $1,751.6 $97.6 $1,794.5 $96.1
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 35 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Includes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.

c

Less than $50,000 in LDRD funding.

d

DHS began working with DOE’s laboratories in fiscal year 2003.

Table 19: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy

Counter Intelligence $1.5 b $1.5 $0.1

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 124.1 2.4 119.6 2.3

Environmental Management 32.1 0.9 11.3 0.3

Environment, Safety, and Health 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.1

Fossil Energy 12.3 0.3 11.9 0.3

National Nuclear Security Administration 67.1 1.4 93.0 1.8

Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 20.0 0.6 27.4 0.8

Science 215.8 5.9 244.1 5.7

Security 5.2 0.3 6.3 0.3

DOE-relatedc 64.8 1.6 67.2 1.6

Other DOE sponsors 0.7 b 0.6 b

Department of Defense

Air Force 1.5 b 4.0 0.1

Army 20.0 0.5 16.2 0.4

Navy 1.3 b 4.5 0.1

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 1.7 b 2.9 0.1

Defense Logistics Agency 3.4 0.1 3.7 0.1

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 5.7 0.1 6.8 0.2

Other Defense agencies 1.1 b 8.0 0.2

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7.8 0.3 10.3 0.3

Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 3.4 0.1 2.7 0.1

Other Transportation agencies 2.9 b 2.2 b

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 4.4 0.1 7.3 0.2

Environmental Protection Agency 4.7 0.1 3.9 0.1
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 36 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $50,000 in LDRD funding.

c

Includes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.

d

Less than $1 million in total funding.

National Institutes of Health 1.1 b 1.5 b

National Institute of Standards and Technology d b 1.6 b

Department of State 1.4 b 1.6 b

Federal Emergency Management Agency d b 1.1 b

Other federal agencies 5.0 0.1 4.0 0.1

Nonfederal sources 21.6 0.7 23.1 0.7

Total $633.1 $15.7 $690.5 $16.1

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 37 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Table 20: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $50,000 in LDRD funding.

c

Less than $1 million in total funding.

d

Includes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy

Counter Intelligence $14.2 $0.5 $11.8 $0.5

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 26.7 1.0 31.3 1.2

Environment, Safety, and Health 1.2 b 1.7 0.1

Environmental Management 76.7 3.1 53.8 2.4

Fossil Energy 5.3 0.2 7.6 0.3

Intelligence 4.9 0.2 3.5 0.2

National Nuclear Security Administration 138.2 2.7 135.2 3.2

Science 81.4 2.8 112.0 3.5

Security 5.8 0.2 3.8 0.2

Chief Information Officer c b 2.1 0.1

DOE relatedd 50.4 2.1 (5.8)e 1.8

Other DOE sponsors 17.3 0.2 1.3 0.1

Department of Defense

Air Force 9.7 0.4 9.7 0.4

Army 21.1 0.9 20.0 0.9

Navy 1.9 0.1 2.7 0.1

Other Defense agencies 6.0 0.2 25.2 0.8

Bonneville Power Administration c b 2.9 0.1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4.7 0.2 7.2 0.4

Department of State 3.8 0.2 1.2 0.1

Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service c b 2.6 0.1

Environmental Protection Agency 1.9 0.1 1.6 0.1

Other federal agencies 14.2 0.6 19.3 1.0

Nonfederal sources 1.3 0.1 2.1 0.1

Total $486.9 $15.9 $452.7 $17.3
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 38 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

e

Net interlaboratory/intersite transfers at Pacific Northwest for fiscal year 2003 resulted in a negative 

number.

Table 21: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Sandia National Laboratories, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Department of Energy

Counter Intelligence $2.8 $0.1 $2.7 $0.2

Energy Assurance b c 3.0 0.2

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 42.3 2.4 38.6 2.3

Environmental Management 49.1 2.8 42.0 2.5

Fossil Energy 7.1 0.4 6.8 0.4

Intelligence 3.0 0.1 3.3 0.2

National Nuclear Security Administration 995.9 53.8 1,071.1 61.7

Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 2.5 0.1 3.8 0.2

Science 39.3 2.2 41.9 2.4

Security 10.1 0.5 12.3 0.7

DOE relatedd 68.0 3.5 65.3 3.6

Other DOE sponsors 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.1

Department of Defense

Air Force 96.6 4.9 122.9 6.9

Army 66.7 3.5 69.2 4.1

Navy 42.2 2.1 55.3 3.1

Weapons Parts and Assemblies 1.4 0.1 1.8 0.1

Office of the Secretary of Defense 1.1 0.1 1.4 0.1

Strategic Defense Initiative Organization 3.0 0.1 5.3 0.2

Defense Nuclear Agency 24.3 1.2 38.3 2.2

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 19.2 1.0 17.5 1.0

Other Defense agencies 5.8 0.3 10.8 0.5

Defense-related agencies 43.7 2.0 35.8 2.0

Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12.9 0.6 22.1 1.2

Department of Transportation 7.0 0.4 6.3 0.4

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 4.3 0.2 3.0 0.2

Environmental Protection Agency 2.0 0.1 b c

National Institutes of Health b c 1.0 0.1
Appendix II

Funding Data for DOE Laboratories 

Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal 

Years 2002 and 2003

Page 39 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Source: Sandia National Laboratories.

Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.

a

Includes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.

b

Less than $1 million in total funding.

c

Less than $50,000 in LDRD funding.

d

Includes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.

e

DHS began working with DOE’s laboratories in fiscal year 2003.

Department of Homeland Security e e 0.4 c

Department of the Interior b c 1.6 0.1

Other federal agencies 15.8 0.8 12.6 0.7

Nonfederal sources 48.8 2.5 46.2 2.6

Total $1,615.7 $86.0 $1,742.9 $100.0

(Continued From Previous Page)

Dollars in millions

Source of funding

Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding

Total 

fundinga

LDRD 

funding
Page 40 GAO-04-489 Laboratory-Directed R&D

Appendix III

Comments from the Department of Energy ApendxiI

(360368)
GAO’s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government 

for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal 

programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other 

assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail this 

list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to 

e-mail alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading.

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check 

or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO 

also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single 

address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Service Requested

Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00