GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-277381 

July 11, 1997

The Honorable Richard K. Armey

Majority Leader

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman, Committee on Government Reform

 and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Livingston

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Subject: Results Act: Observations on the Department of Energy’s Draft

Strategic Plan

On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the draft strategic plans

submitted by the cabinet departments and selected major agencies for

consultation with the Congress as required by the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act). This report is our

response to that request concerning the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE

is at a critical juncture in its history. The Department’s original core

missions—to develop and test nuclear weapons, conduct basic energy

research, and set national energy policy—are being replaced in emphasis

by major new challenges in environmental cleanup and leadership in

science and technology.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

We agreed to review DOE’s draft plan and (1) assess whether it fulfills the

requirements of the Results Act and provide our views on its overall

quality; (2) determine whether DOE’s key statutory authorities are reflected

in the draft plan and, if so, how they relate to the missions and goals in the

draft plan; (3) assess whether it reflects interagency coordination for

crosscutting programs, activities, or functions that are similar or

complementary to those of other federal agencies; (4) assess whether it

addresses major management challenges that we had previously identified;

Page 1 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

and (5) assess the adequacy of DOE’s data and information systems for

providing reliable information for measuring results.

We reviewed the most recent draft strategic plan—dated June 16,

1997—that DOE provided to congressional committees. Our overall

assessment was generally based on our knowledge of DOE’s programs and

operations; our numerous reviews of the Department; our discussions with

DOE’s Acting Director, Office of Strategic Planning, Budget and Program

Evaluation; and other information available at the time of our assessment.

Specifically, we used the Results Act, supplemented by Office of

Management and Budget’s (OMB) guidance on developing the plans

(Circular A-11, Part 2), as the criteria for determining whether DOE’s draft

strategic plan complies with the requirements of the Results Act. To make

judgments about the overall quality of the plan, we used our May 1997

guidance for congressional review of the plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.16) as a tool.

To determine whether the plan contains information on interagency

coordination and addresses management problems we previously

identified, we relied on our general knowledge of DOE’s operations and

programs and on the results of our previous reports. In determining

whether DOE’s draft plan reflects the Department’s major statutory

responsibilities, we consulted with DOE’s Office of General Counsel and, as

you requested, coordinated our review with the Congressional Research

Service. To determine whether DOE has adequate systems in place to

provide reliable information on performance, we relied on the results of

our previous reports and those of the Department’s Office of Inspector

General.

It is also important to recognize that DOE’s final strategic plan is not due to

the Congress and OMB until September 1997. Furthermore, the Results Act

anticipated that it may take several planning cycles to perfect the process

and that the final plan would be continually refined as future planning

cycles occur. Thus, our findings reflect a snapshot of the draft plan at this

time. We recognize that developing a strategic plan is a dynamic process

and that DOE is continuing to revise the draft with input from OMB,

congressional staff, and other stakeholders.

Our work was performed in June and July 1997 in accordance with

generally accepted government auditing standards. We obtained

comments on a draft of this report from DOE. Its comments are enclosed.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

Background Created in 1977 from several diverse agencies, DOE manages the nation’s

nuclear weapons production complex and conducts research and

development on both energy and basic science. DOE operates an elaborate

network of facilities, its core being the nuclear weapons complex—a

collection of 17 major facilities in 13 states that design, develop, test,

produce, and now dismantle the nation’s vast nuclear arsenal. About half

of DOE’s $16.5 billion fiscal year 1997 budget is devoted to the nuclear

weapons complex, an allocation that reflects both the buildup of these

weapons through the 1980s and, more recently, the rapidly escalating cost

of nuclear waste management and environmental restoration. DOE also

maintains one of the world’s largest networks of scientific laboratories,

comprising nearly 30 sophisticated laboratories valued at over $100 billion.

Highly dependent on contractors, DOE has about 110,000 contract workers

and about 18,600 federal employees.

DOE began its strategic planning process in summer 1993, the same year

that the Results Act was passed. Although the first strategic plan under the

act was not due until September 1997, DOE issued a plan in April 1994.

Since that time, DOE has been actively pursuing the objectives of the act by

completing several planning and reporting documents before the act

required them. For example, DOE has issued an annual performance report

for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 and a performance-based budget plan for

fiscal year 1998. In addition, the Secretary of Energy entered into annual

performance agreements with the President for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.

These agreements committed the Department to the achievement of its

goals and objectives for those years. Along with early Results Act

accomplishments, DOE also began preparing annual audited financial

statements, as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act in fiscal year

1995, and received an unqualified opinion from its Office of Inspector

General on the fiscal year 1996 statements.

Results in Brief To its credit, DOE has been actively pursuing the objectives of the Results

Act since 1993. Its draft plan provides a mission statement that is generally

complete, results-oriented, and fulfills public needs. However, the draft

plan does not meet all the requirements of the Results Act. The draft plan

fully addresses two of the six required elements of the Results Act—the

mission statement and goals and objectives—partially addresses a third,

and acknowledges that three others need to be completed for the final

plan. Because the draft plan does not contain all six elements, the

Congress is missing critical pieces of information for its consultation with

DOE.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

The draft plan does not expressly link its mission, goals and objectives,

and strategies with DOE’s relevant major statutory responsibilities. The

Results Act does not require agencies’ strategic plans to contain a

statement of statutory authorities. However, we believe that including

such linkages may permit a better understanding of the diversity and

complexity of DOE’s overall mission and goals and objectives. On the basis

of our review of relevant legislation, we believe that (1) the missions and

activities defined in DOE’s draft plan are generally supported by broad

legislation and (2) the draft plan accurately reflects all of DOE’s major

legislative requirements. However, these current missions have evolved

from those that the Congress envisioned when it created DOE in 1977. The

Results Act process provides a forum through which the Congress can

ensure that DOE’s missions and priorities are complementary, are

appropriate in scope, do not duplicate those of other agencies

unnecessarily, and are in line with congressional priorities.

DOE is sharing its draft plan with other federal agencies for coordination

but believes its functions are unique. Its draft plan therefore does not

identify programs and activities that are crosscutting or similar to those of

other federal agencies. However, DOE’s mission does involve or overlap

those of other agencies. For example, basic research is also performed by

the National Science Foundation; environmental and energy resources

issues are also addressed by the Environmental Protection Agency and

other agencies; and nuclear weapons production is done to fulfill

requirements of the Department of Defense.

Our previous work has highlighted serious problems with DOE’s

management of contracts and major projects. DOE’s plan, under a section

called corporate management, includes objectives and strategies that

focus on these management challenges. However, the specific measures in

the draft plan to address these challenges appear limited in scope or are

unclear. For example, while DOE is making progress in addressing the

high-risk issue of contract management, the draft plan does not discuss the

need to increase competition in DOE’s management and operating

contracts, a fundamental problem that we have identified in previous

reports.

Our review of the information system DOE uses to track performance

measures and to identify management problems noted several

weaknesses. The system will require modification to track performance

measures evolving from the draft plan. In addition, the system depends on

Page 4 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

information from other systems, some of which have had problems with

data accuracy and completeness.

Draft Strategic Plan

Reflects Few of the

Key Elements

Required by the

Results Act

The draft plan does not provide the Congress with complete information

for its consultation with DOE. The draft plan includes two of the six critical

elements—(1) mission and (2) goals and objectives. While DOE partially

included a third element by defining its strategies, it has not identified the

associated resources needed to achieve its strategies. Furthermore, three

other elements have not been included—the relationship between the

long-term goals and the annual performance goals, the key factors external

to the agency, and the impact of program evaluations on the development

of strategic goals. In issuing its draft plan, DOE acknowledged that it does

not yet fully meet the Results Act’s requirements but said that all of the

elements will be included in the final plan.

Mission Statement

Included in Draft Plan

DOE’s mission statement provides a short overarching statement, but the

substance of its mission is described by what it calls four business lines

(hereafter called missions). These are energy resources, national security,

environmental quality, and science and technology. DOE’s draft plan also

includes a section on corporate management, which cuts across the

missions.

DOE’s descriptions of its four missions generally are complete, are

results-oriented, and address public needs. By complete, we mean that the

agency’s major activities appear to be covered. In addition, the

descriptions broadly focus on the expected outcomes. For example, a

broad outcome of one of the missions is to effectively support and

maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile without

nuclear testing. Moreover, the descriptions focus on public needs, such as

the need to reduce the environmental, safety, and health risks from DOE

facilities.

As we have reported and testified before the Congress, DOE’s current

missions bear little resemblance to those envisioned when the agency was

created in 1977.1 DOE was created to deal primarily with the energy crisis

of the 1970s. By the early 1980s, its nuclear weapons production activities

had grown substantially. Following revelations about DOE’s environmental

problems in the mid- to late-1980s, the Department’s cleanup budget began

1

Department of Energy: Observations on the Future of the Department (GAO/T-RCED-96-224, Sept. 4,

1996) and Department of Energy: A Framework for Restructuring DOE and Its Missions

(GAO/RCED-95-197, Aug. 21, 1995).

Page 5 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

to expand and now overshadows the budget for all other activities. With

the Cold War’s end, DOE’s missions were expanded to include industrial

competitiveness; science education; environment, safety, and health; and

nuclear arms control and verification. The Results Act process provides a

forum for the Congress to examine DOE’s current missions to ensure that

Department’s priorities are in line with those of the Congress and that

DOE’s functions are complementary, appropriate in scope, and not

unnecessarily duplicative.

Goals and Objectives

Defined in Draft Plan

The second element in DOE’s draft plan is the goals and objectives of its

missions and corporate management. The goals and objectives cover the

agency’s major functions and operations, and the goals are generally

results-oriented. For example, one goal includes aggressively cleaning up

the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear research

and development programs, minimizing future waste generation, safely

managing nuclear materials, and permanently disposing of the nation’s

radioactive waste. Although some of the terms are vague, the goal focuses

on results.

For each goal, DOE has multiple objectives. Our review identified several

objectives that are stated in ways that will make it difficult to measure

whether they are being achieved. One example of an objective that is not

measurable as written is under DOE’s national security mission: to maintain

confidence in the safety, reliability, and performance of the nuclear

weapons stockpile without nuclear testing. But we recently reported that

DOE had not defined a minimum acceptable level of confidence for its

stockpile surveillance testing.2

 We noted that DOE had not performed

stockpile surveillance tests as scheduled and was not able to measure the

resulting decrease in confidence. For this objective to be measurable, it

should include a specific, measurable definition of confidence.

Another objective, listed under the environmental quality mission, is to

reduce the most serious risks first. Although a valid and important

objective, it cannot be achieved because DOE has not identified priorities

across its various sites. As we reported in 1995, DOE’s cleanup strategy has

been shaped by site-specific environmental agreements without

consideration of other agreements or available resources.3

 To enable DOE

2

Nuclear Weapons: Improvements Needed to DOE’s Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Surveillance Program

(GAO/RCED-96-216, July 31, 1996).

3

Department of Energy: National Priorities Needed for Meeting Environmental Agreements

(GAO/RCED-95-1, Mar. 3, 1995).

Page 6 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

to allocate its resources to reducing the greatest environmental risks, we

recommended that DOE set national priorities and initiate discussions with

regulators to renegotiate milestones in agreements according to those

national priorities. Without overall priorities for the risks to be addressed,

the Congress will not be able to determine whether this objective is being

achieved, nor will DOE be able to target its resources to ensure that this

objective is achieved.

Strategies Included in

Draft Plan

DOE’s draft plan includes strategies and, to the Department’s credit, about

220 performance measures, which DOE calls success measures, for

evaluating the results of the strategies. However, although DOE

acknowledges that it has not yet included the resource information the

Results Act requires, other information under this element is also missing.

The missing information includes linkages to day-to-day activities; the

historical resource trends; and the extent to which managers have the

knowledge, skills, and abilities to implement the strategies. Without this

information, it is difficult to judge DOE’s likelihood of success in achieving

the goals or the appropriateness of the strategies.

According to DOE’s Acting Director, Office of Strategic Planning, Budget

and Program Evaluation, the Secretary is looking for several

improvements in the draft plan. The Acting Director said that many of the

objectives were supported with process-oriented measures as opposed to

expected results and that both the strategies and the measures need to be

more action oriented. We concur.

Three Elements Not

Included in Draft Plan

In addition to the missing components of the strategy and resources

element, three other elements have not been included. They are the

relationship between the long-term goals and annual performance goals,

the key factors external to the agency, and the impact of program

evaluations on the development of strategic goals. Without these elements,

we cannot assess the overall draft plan, nor can the Congress have an

effective consultation with DOE because the elements required by the

Results Act are interdependent. For example, key external factors are

important in evaluating the likelihood of achieving the strategic goals and

the actions needed to better meet these goals. Furthermore, program

evaluation can be a potentially critical source of information for the

Congress and others in ensuring the validity and reasonableness of the

goals and strategies as well as in identifying factors likely to affect

performance.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

According to the Acting Director, DOE’s Office of Strategic Planning,

Budget and Program Evaluation, these elements, while not included in the

draft plan, are being finalized and were considered in preparing the

elements included in the draft plan. He stated that these missing elements

will be included in the final plan.

Legislative Authorities

Considered but Not

Included

The Results Act does not require a statement of major statutory

responsibilities to be included with the agency’s plan.4

 Thus, DOE’s draft

plan does not include references to its major statutory authorities nor does

it expressly link the missions, goals and objectives, and strategies with its

relevant major statutory responsibilities. Nevertheless, we believe that

including such linkages in the plan may permit a better understanding of

the diversity and complexity of DOE’s overall mission and goals and

objectives. According to DOE’s Acting Director, Office of Strategic

Planning, Budget and Program Evaluation, these references were

considered and will be provided as part of the plan when it is issued in

final form in September.

On the basis of our review of relevant legislation, we believe that (1) the

activities defined in DOE’s draft plan are broadly supported by legislation

and (2) the draft plan accurately reflects all of DOE’s major legislative

requirements. We noted that in addition to its statutory authority, DOE has

taken into consideration implementation of relevant international treaties

or agreements, such as the Agreed Framework executed with North Korea.

However, we question the reference in the national security objective to

reducing the danger from nuclear and “other weapons of mass

destruction.” In our view, DOE’s role with respect to weapons of mass

destruction other than nuclear is peripheral to its other responsibilities.

Although DOE’s missions are broadly supported by legislation, they have

evolved from those that the Congress envisioned when it created DOE in

1977. As discussed earlier, the Results Act process provides a forum

through which the Congress can ensure that DOE’s missions and priorities

are complementary, are appropriate in scope, do not duplicate those of

other agencies unnecessarily, and are in line with congressional priorities.

4

OMB Circular A-11 suggests that an agency’s mission statement may include a brief discussion of the

agency’s enabling or authorizing legislation. This suggestion, however, does not extend to the

statement of goals and objectives.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

Crosscutting Program

Activities Not

Identified, but

Coordination Is

Occurring

DOE’s draft plan does not identify programs and activities that are

crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies, primarily

because DOE believes its functions are unique. Nonetheless, DOE is sharing

its draft plan with other federal agencies for coordination. On the basis of

our work, however, we believe that DOE’s four broad missions do involve

or overlap those of other agencies. Because overlapping and fragmented

programs can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program

customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort, it is

important for DOE to address this issue in its plan.

In the science and technology area, for instance, where the federal

government spent $60 billion in fiscal year 1996 and the potential for

unnecessary overlap is particularly pronounced, close coordination is

essential. We have identified several examples of agencies with potentially

overlapping missions. According to draft strategic plans,

• DOE’s science mission is to maintain leadership in basic research and to

advance scientific knowledge;

• the National Science Foundation’s mission includes promoting the

progress of science, and one of its overarching goals is to enable the

United States to uphold a position of world leadership in all aspects of

science, mathematics, and engineering; and

• the Department of Commerce’s mission includes keeping the United States

competitive with cutting-edge science and technology.

Furthermore, DOE states that it will use its laboratories and the nation’s

universities to contribute to the nation’s science and mathematics

education. However, the National Science Foundation’s authorizing

legislation directs it to initiate and support science and engineering

education programs at all levels and in all the various fields of science and

engineering.

Unless DOE addresses crosscutting issues in its plan, the Congress cannot

be assured that federal programs are working effectively. As we have

reported previously, the effectiveness of DOE and a host of other science

agencies has been hampered by unfocused missions and unclear goals.5

For example, the DOE national laboratories, in which DOE estimates it has

invested over $100 billion in the last two decades, are a specific area in

5

Managing for Results: Key Steps and Challenges in Implementing GPRA in Science Agencies

(GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214, July 10, 1996).

Page 9 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

which our work, and that of others, has shown a long-standing need for

clarified missions.6

DOE’s other missions also involve or overlap those of other agencies. For

example, environmental and energy resources issues are addressed by DOE

as well as by the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies.

Similarly, nuclear weapons production issues involve DOE and the

Department of Defense.

Draft Strategic Plan

Addresses Major

Management

Challenges

Under its corporate management goal and objectives, DOE’s draft plan

addresses major management challenges that we have previously

identified—management of contracts and major projects. However, the

measures to address these challenges are unclear and do not address

issues that we consider to be significant.

In discussing contracting approaches, the draft plan proposes strategies

that emphasize results, contractor accountability, and customer

satisfaction. We commend DOE for including a specific success measure for

converting its management and operating contracts to performance-based

contracts because we consider the Department’s contract management a

high-risk area that is vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and

mismanagement. But the draft plan does not address the need to increase

competition in DOE’s management and operating contracts, a fundamental

problem that we have identified in previous reports. As we reported in our

1997 high-risk report, DOE continues to award most of its management and

operating contracts noncompetitively.7

 From July 5, 1994, through the end

of August 1996, DOE decided to extend 16 of 24 contracts on a

noncompetitive basis; it awarded the other 8 on a competitive basis. If this

pattern continues, DOE will not gain the full benefits of competition and

will remain in the same weak negotiating position it has maintained for

years.

Similarly, another strategy of DOE’s is to strengthen the management of

facilities, projects, and infrastructure to ensure cost-effective, safe, and

environmentally sound operations and the successful completion of new

projects. This strategy is important because DOE has had a dismal track

record for its major systems acquisitions—those costing at least

$100 million and required to fulfill the Department’s missions. Of the 80

6

Department of Energy: National Laboratories Need Clearer Mission and Better Management

(GAO/RCED-95-10, Jan. 27, 1995).

7

High-Risk Series: Department of Energy Contract Management (GAO/HR-97-13, Feb. 1997).

Page 10 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

major acquisitions that DOE initiated from 1980 through 1996, it has

completed 15.8

 Most were finished behind schedule with cost overruns.

Three of the completed acquisitions have not yet been used for their

intended purposes. Thirty-one others were terminated prior to completion

after expenditures of over $10 billion. Many of the remaining 34 ongoing

projects are experiencing cost overruns and delays.

In its draft plan, DOE included a success measure that focuses on meeting

established project scope, schedule, and cost baselines. DOE plans to

accomplish this by adopting management systems based on the best

project management practices of industry and government. But this

strategy does not address the four causes that we identified in our 1996

report as contributing to these problems: the lack of effective incentives

for both DOE and contractor employees, inadequate technical and

management expertise, the Department’s changing missions, and

inconsistent support for the projects either from the Department or from

the Congress. We believe that addressing these root causes is crucial to

correcting DOE’s deficiencies in project management.

Actions May Be

Needed to Provide

Reliable Information

on Achievement of

Strategic Goals

DOE will need to modify the existing information system it anticipates

using to track performance measures evolving from the draft plan and to

identify management problems. Moveover, that system depends on

information from other systems, some of which have problems with data

accuracy and completeness, according to reviews conducted by both us

and by DOE’s Office of Inspector General.

According to DOE’s Acting Director, Office of Strategic Planning, Budget

and Program Evaluation, DOE will initially use an existing information

system to measure progress under its strategic plan. This system is the one

that DOE currently uses to measure progress against the performance goals

in the Secretary’s annual performance agreements with the President.

Although this system addresses many of the same issues that are in the

draft strategic plan, it will require fairly extensive modifications to track

performance goals that are based on the success measures in DOE’s draft

plan.

In addition, the information used to update the tracking system depends

on various other information systems. However, we and DOE’s Inspector

8

Department of Energy: Opportunity to Improve Management of Major System Acquisitions

(GAO/RCED-97-17, Nov. 26, 1996).

Page 11 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

General have found that, in some cases, the information from those

systems may be incomplete or inaccurate, as these examples show:

• Under a corporate management objective, one of the success measures is

to have no fatalities, serious accidents, or environmental releases.

However, DOE’s Inspector General reported that the Department’s

computerized accident reporting system underreports the number of

significant work-related illnesses and injuries.9

• Under the environmental quality mission, one of DOE’s strategies is to

develop and deploy innovative environmental cleanup, nuclear waste, and

spent fuel treatment technologies that reduce costs. But, according to a

recent Inspector General report, the Department’s contractors have not

implemented a system to collect and disseminate scientific and technical

information.10 Also, we recently testified that confidence in the

cost-savings estimates varied for the environmental projects that we

reviewed because they were based on preliminary data or reflected

changes in project scope and duration.11

• Under the national security mission, one of the success measures is to

protect all U.S.-origin nuclear materials in foreign countries from possible

illicit nuclear trafficking. However, we have reported that the U.S. system

that tracks exported nuclear materials does not have all the information

needed to identify the specific location and status of all nuclear materials

of U.S. origin that are supplied to foreign countries.12

Observations To its credit, DOE has been actively pursuing the objectives of the Results

Act since 1993. DOE has done a good job of focusing on Department-wide

missions that transcend the interests of individual programs. However, in

not completing more than two of the six elements, DOE may have lost an

opportunity to have the most effective congressional consultation process.

Nonetheless, the consultation process provides the opportunity for the

Congress to evaluate the continuing appropriateness of DOE’s missions in

light of the fact that (1) these missions have changed drastically from

9

Audit of Department of Energy Contractor Occupational Injury and Illness Reporting Practices

(DOE/IG-0404, May 7, 1997).

10Audit of the Department of Energy’s Scientific and Technical Information Process (DOE/IG-0407, June

17, 1997).

11Cleanup Technology: DOE’s Program to Develop New Technologies for Environmental Cleanup

(GAO/T-RCED-97-161, May 7, 1997).

12Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. International Nuclear Materials Tracking Capabilities Are Limited

(GAO/RCED/AIMD-95-5, Dec. 27, 1994).

Page 12 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

those that existed when DOE was created and (2) the four broad missions

significantly involve or overlap those of other agencies. In this way, the

Congress can ensure that DOE’s priorities are in line with its own and that

DOE’s functions are complementary, appropriate in scope, and not

unnecessarily duplicative.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Energy for its

review and comment. (DOE’s comments are in the enclosure.) Overall, DOE

agreed that our report will be helpful as the Department moves to the next

stage of its strategic plan’s development. However, DOE (1) disagreed that

the incompleteness of its strategic plan lessened the effectiveness of its

consultation with congressional staffs and (2) believed that, in general, the

consultation process could be impaired if agencies are taken to task for

not having fully developed final plans. While we agree with DOE that

effective consultation can be based on working draft plans, we believe that

these draft plans should discuss the six elements outlined in the Results

Act to provide a better foundation for the consultation process.

Recognizing DOE is continuing to revise its draft plan, our report focused

on issues not resolved in the Department’s working draft. We believe that

it is important for these issues to be considered over the few remaining

months of consultation before a final plan is required.

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

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Minority

Leader of the House of Representatives; Ranking Minority Members of

your Committees and the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of

other committees that have jurisdiction over DOE; the Secretary of Energy;

and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will send copies

to others on request.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277381 

Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this report.

Victor S. Rezendes

Director, Energy, Resources,

 and Science Issues

Enclosure

Page 14 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
Page 15 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 16 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

(141074) Page 17 GAO/RCED-97-199R DOE’s Draft Strategic Plan
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

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

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or 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.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail 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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100