United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1998 DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY

Uncertain Progress in

Implementing National

Laboratory Reforms

GAO/RCED-98-197

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-280451 

September 10, 1998

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable George E. Brown, Jr.

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Science

House of Representatives

The Department of Energy (DOE) manages the largest laboratory system of

its kind in the world. Since the early days of the World War II Manhattan

Project, DOE’s laboratories have played a major role in maintaining U.S.

leadership in research and development (R&D). With 23 laboratories in 14

states, a combined budget of over $10 billion a year, and a staff of about

60,000, DOE is responsible for ensuring that the laboratory system is

managed in an effective, efficient, and economical manner.

DOE’s stewardship of the laboratory complex has been questioned over the

past 20 years by various advisory groups. These groups have identified

management weaknesses in the way DOE manages its laboratory system. In

recent years, the Congress has held several hearings on various aspects of

the future of the national laboratories. Since 1994, we have testified three

times on the missions and management of the national laboratories.

Concerned about DOE’s progress in making needed management reforms,

you asked us to

• identify the recommendations by various advisory groups for addressing

management weaknesses at DOE and the laboratories and

• evaluate how DOE and its laboratories have responded to these

recommendations.

Results in Brief For nearly 20 years, many advisory groups have found that while DOE’s

national laboratories do impressive research and development, they are

unfocused, are micromanaged by DOE, and do not function as an integrated

national research and development system. Weaknesses in DOE’s

leadership and accountability are often cited as factors hindering

fundamental reform of the laboratories’ management. As a result, advisory

groups have made dozens of recommendations ranging from improving

strategic planning to streamlining internal processes. Several past advisory

Page 1 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

groups have also suggested major organizational changes in the way the

laboratories are directed.

To address past recommendations by advisory groups, DOE, at our request,

documented the actions it has taken, from creating new task forces to

developing strategic laboratory plans. While DOE has made some

progress—principally by reducing paperwork burdens on its

laboratories—most of its actions are still under way or have unclear

outcomes. Furthermore, these actions lack the objectives, performance

measures, and milestones needed to effectively track progress and

account for results. Consequently, the Department cannot show how its

actions have resulted, or may result, in fundamental change. For example,

its Strategic Laboratory Missions Plan, which was developed to give more

focus and direction to the national laboratories, does not set priorities and

is not tied to the annual budget process. Few experts and officials we

consulted could show how the plan is used to focus missions or integrate

the laboratory system. DOE’s latest technique for focusing the laboratories’

missions is the “technology roadmap.” Roadmaps are plans that show how

specific DOE activities relate to missions, goals, and performers. Roadmaps

are a promising step but have been used in only a few mission areas and

are not directly tied to DOE’s budget process. Moreover, several laboratory

directors questioned both the accuracy of the actions DOE has reported

taking and their applicability at the laboratory level. DOE’s organizational

weaknesses, which include unclear lines of authority, are a major reason

why the Department has been unable to develop long-term solutions to the

recurring problems reported by advisory groups. Although DOE created the

Laboratory Operations Board to help oversee laboratory management

reform, it is only an advisory body within DOE’s complex organizational

structure and lacks the authority to direct change.

Background The missions of DOE’s 23 laboratories have evolved over the last 55 years.

Originally created to design and build atomic bombs under the Manhattan

Project, these laboratories have since expanded to conduct research in

many disciplines—from high-energy physics to advanced computing at

facilities throughout the nation. DOE’s goal is to use the laboratories for

developing clean energy sources and pollution-prevention technologies,

for ensuring enhanced security through reductions in the nuclear threat,

and for continuing leadership in the acquisition of scientific knowledge.

The Department considers the laboratories a key to a growing economy

fueled by technological innovations that increase U.S. industrial

competitiveness and create new high-skill jobs for American workers.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

Missions have expanded in the laboratories for many reasons, including

changes in the world’s political environment.

Nine of DOE’s 23 laboratories are multiprogram national laboratories; they

account for about 70 percent of the total laboratory budget and about

80 percent of all laboratory personnel. Three of these multiprogram

national laboratories (Lawrence Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia)

conduct the majority of DOE’s nuclear weapons defense activities. Facing

reduced funding for nuclear weapons as a result of the Cold War’s end and

the signing of the comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty, these three

laboratories have substantially diversified to maintain their preeminent

talent and facilities. The remaining laboratories in DOE’s system are

program- and mission-dedicated facilities. (See app. I for a list of all DOE

laboratories.) DOE owns the laboratories and contracts with universities

and private-sector organizations for the management and operation of 19,

while providing federal staff for the remaining 4.

The Congress is taking a growing interest in how the national laboratories

are being managed. Recently introduced legislation would restructure the

missions of the laboratories or manage them in new ways. Some

previously proposed organizational options include converting the

laboratories that are working closely with the private sector into

independent entities or transferring the responsibility for one or more

laboratories to other federal agencies whose missions are closely aligned

with those of particular DOE laboratories. We have reported to the

Congress that DOE’s efforts to sharpen the focus and improve the

management of its laboratories have been elusive and that the challenges

facing the Department raise concerns about how effectively it can manage

reform initiatives.1

Advisory Groups Cite

Continuing Mission

and Management

Concerns at the

National Laboratories

Over the past several years, many government advisory groups have raised

concerns about how DOE manages its national laboratory system. Major

concerns centered on three issues:

• The laboratories’ missions are unfocused.

• DOE micromanages the laboratories.

• The laboratories are not operating as an integrated system.

1

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

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

Page 3 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

More recent advisory groups have reported similar weaknesses, prompting

the Congress to take a close look at how the national laboratory system is

meeting its objectives.

Concerns Raised by

Advisory Groups

We identified nearly 30 reports by a wide variety of advisory groups on

various aspects of the national laboratories’ management and missions.

(See app. II for a list of past reports.) Most of these reports have been

prepared since the early 1980s. The reports include the following:

• In 1982, DOE’s Energy Research Advisory Board reported that the national

laboratories duplicate private-sector research and that while DOE could

take better advantage of the national laboratories’ capabilities, it needed to

address its own management and organizational inefficiencies, which

hamper the achievement of a more effective laboratory system.2

• In 1983, a White House Science Council Panel found that while DOE’s

laboratories had well-defined missions for part of their work, most

activities were fragmented and unrelated to the laboratories’ main

responsibilities.3

• In 1992, DOE’s Secretary of Energy Advisory Board found that the

laboratories’ broad missions, coupled with rapidly changing world events,

had “caused a loss of coherence and focus at the laboratories, thereby

reducing their overall effectiveness in responding to their traditional

missions as well as new national initiatives. . . .”4

• A 1993 report by an internal DOE task force reported that missions “must

be updated to support DOE’s new directions and to respond to new national

imperatives. . . .”5

The most recent extensive review of DOE’s national laboratories was

performed by a task force chaired by Robert Galvin, former Chairman of

the Motorola Corporation. Consisting of distinguished leaders from

government, academia, and industry, the Galvin Task Force was

established to examine alternatives for directing the laboratories’ scientific

and engineering resources to meet the economic, environmental, defense,

2

The Department of Energy Multiprogram Laboratories: A Report of the Energy Research Advisory

Board to the United States Department of Energy (Sept. 1982).

3

Report of the White House Science Council, Federal Laboratory Review Panel, Office of Science and

Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President (May 20, 1983).

4

Final Report, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (1992).

5

Changes and Challenges at the Department of Energy Laboratories: Final Draft Report of the Missions

of the Laboratories Priority Team (1993).

Page 4 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

scientific, and energy needs of the nation. Its 1995 report identified many

of the problems noted in earlier studies and called for a more disciplined

focus for the national laboratories, also reporting that the laboratories may

be oversized for their role.6

The Galvin Task Force reported that the traditional government ownership

and contractor operation of the laboratories has not worked well.

According to its report, increasing DOE’s administration and oversight

transformed the laboratories from traditional contractor-operated systems

into a virtual government-operated system. The report noted that many

past studies of DOE’s laboratories had resulted in efforts to fine-tune the

system but led to little fundamental improvement. Regarding the

management structure of DOE’s non-weapons-oriented laboratories, the

task force recommended a major change in the organization and

governance of the laboratory system. The task force envisioned a

not-for-profit corporation governed by a board of trustees, consisting

primarily of distinguished scientists and engineers and experienced senior

executives from U.S. industry. Such a change in governance, the task force

reported, would improve the standards and quality of work and at the

same time generate over 20 percent in cost savings.

Other findings by the task force and subsequent reports by other advisory

groups have focused on the need for DOE to integrate R&D programs across

the Department and among the laboratories to increase management

efficiencies, reduce administrative burdens, and better define the

laboratories’ missions.

In June 1995, DOE’s Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and

Development, chaired by energy analyst Daniel Yergin, issued a report on

DOE’s energy R&D programs.7 The report assessed the rationale for the

federal government’s support of energy R&D, reviewed the priorities and

management of the overall program, and recommended ways of making it

more efficient and effective. The task force recommended that DOE

streamline its R&D management, develop a strategic plan for energy R&D,

eliminate duplicative laboratory programs and research projects, and

reorganize and consolidate dispersed R&D programs at DOE laboratories.

6

Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories, Secretary of Energy

Advisory Board Task Force on Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National

Laboratories, DOE (Feb. 1995).

7

Energy R&D: Shaping our Nation’s Future in a Competitive World. Final Report, Final Report of the

Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and Development, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, DOE

(June 1995).

Page 5 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

In August 1995, the National Science and Technology Council examined

laboratories in DOE, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).8

 The Council reported that

DOE’s existing system of laboratory governance needs fundamental repair,

stating that DOE’s laboratory system is bigger and more expensive than is

needed to meet essential missions in energy, the environment, national

security, and fundamental science. The Council recommended that DOE

develop ways to eliminate apparent overlap and unnecessary redundancy

between its laboratory system and DOD’s and NASA’s.

DOE’s Laboratory Operations Board was created in 1995 to focus the

laboratories’ missions and reduce DOE’s micromanagement. Members

serving on the Board from outside DOE have issued four different reports,

which have noted the need to

• focus and define the laboratories’ missions in relation to the Department’s

missions,

• integrate the laboratories’ programmatic work, and

• streamline operations, including the elimination or reduction of

administrative burdens.

In March 1997, the Office of Science and Technology Policy reported on

laboratories managed by DOE, DOD, and NASA.

9

 The Office cited efforts by

the three agencies to improve their laboratory management but found that

DOE was still micro-managing its laboratories and had made little progress

toward reducing the administrative burdens it imposes on its laboratories.

The Office recommended a variety of improvements in performance

measures, incentives, and productivity and urged more streamlined

management.

In March 1997, a report by the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) found

that DOE’s processes for managing environment, safety, and health

activities were impeding effective management.10 According to IDA, DOE’s

onerous review processes undermined accountability and prevented

timely decisions from being made and implemented throughout the entire

nuclear weapons complex, including the national laboratories. IDA

8

Future of Major Federal Laboratories, National Science and Technology Council (Aug. 1995).

9

Status of Federal Laboratory Reforms. The Report of the Executive Office of the President Working

Group on the Implementation of Presidential Decision Directive PDD/NSTC-5, Office of Science and

Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President (Mar. 1997).

10The Organization and Management of the Nuclear Weapons Program, Institute for Defense Analyses

(Mar. 1997).

Page 6 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

specifically noted that DOE’s Defense Programs had confusing line and

staff relationships, inadequately defined roles and responsibilities, and

poorly integrated programs and functions. IDA concluded that DOE needed

to strengthen its line accountability and reorganize its structure in several

areas.

DOE Lacks an

Effective Strategy for

Addressing Advisory

Groups’

Recommendations

At our request, DOE provided us with a listing of the actions it took in

response to repeated calls for more focused laboratory missions and

improved management. But while DOE has made progress—principally by

reducing paperwork burdens on its laboratories—most of its actions are

still in process or have unclear expectations and deadlines. Furthermore,

the Department cannot demonstrate how its actions have resulted, or may

result, in fundamental change.

To analyze progress in laboratory management reform, we talked to DOE

and laboratory officials and asked DOE to document the actions it has

taken, is taking, or has planned to address the recommendations from

several advisory groups.11 We used DOE’s responses, which are reprinted in

appendix III, as a basis for discussions with laboratory and DOE officials

and with 18 experts familiar with national laboratory issues. We asked

these experts to examine DOE’s responses. Several of these experts had

served on the Galvin Task Force and are currently serving on DOE’s

Laboratory Operations Board (app. IV lists the experts we interviewed).

The actions DOE said it is taking include

• creating various internal working groups;

• strengthening the Energy R&D Council to facilitate more effective planning,

budgeting, management, and evaluation of the Department’s R&D programs

and to improve the linkage between research and technology

development;

• increasing the use of private-sector management practices;

• adopting performance-based contracting and continuous improvement

concepts;

• improving the oversight of efforts to enhance productivity and reduce

overhead costs at the laboratories;

• expanding the laboratories’ work for other federal agencies;

• evaluating the proper balance between laboratories and universities for

basic research;

• improving science and technology partnerships with industry;

11DOE agreed with GAO to document only those actions taken in response to advisory groups’

recommendations published since the 1995 Galvin Task Force report. These reports are listed in DOE’s

response in app. III.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

• reducing unnecessary oversight burdens on laboratories;

• developing the Strategic Laboratory Missions Plan in July 1996 that

identified laboratory activities in mission areas;

• creating the Laboratory Operations Board, which includes DOE officials

and experts from industry and academia, to provide guidance and

direction to the laboratories; and

• developing “technology roadmaps,” a strategic planning technique to focus

the laboratories’ roles.

DOE’s Actions Offer

Uncertain Progress

Most of the actions DOE reported to us are process oriented, incomplete, or

only marginally related to past recommendations for change. For example,

creating new task forces and strengthening old ones may be good for

defining problems, but these measures cannot force decisions or effect

change.

DOE’s major effort to give more focus to laboratory missions was a

Strategic Laboratory Missions Plan, published in July 1996. The plan

describes the laboratories’ capabilities in the context of DOE’s missions

and, according to the plan, will form the basis for defining the laboratories’

missions in the future. However, the plan is essentially a descriptive

document that does not direct change. Nor does the plan tie DOE’s or the

laboratories’ missions to the annual budget process. When we asked

laboratory officials about strategic planning, most discussed their own

planning capabilities, and some laboratories provided us with their own

self-generated strategic planning documents. None of the officials at the

six laboratories we visited mentioned DOE’s Strategic Laboratory Missions

Plan as an essential document for their strategic planning.

A second action that DOE officials reported as a major step toward

focusing the laboratories’ missions is the introduction of its “technology

roadmaps.” These are described by DOE as planning tools that define the

missions, goals, and requirements of research on a program-by-program

basis. Officials told us that the roadmaps are used to connect larger

departmental goals and are a way to institutionalize strategic planning

within the Department. Roadmaps, according to DOE, will be an important

instrument for melding the laboratories into a stronger and more

integrated national system. DOE reports that roadmaps have already been

developed in some areas, including nuclear science, high-energy physics,

and the fusion program.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

Experts we interviewed agreed that creating roadmaps can be a way to

gain consensus between DOE and the laboratories on a common set of

objectives while also developing a process for reaching those objectives.

However, some experts also stated that it is too soon to tell if this initiative

will succeed. One expert indicated that the Department has not adequately

analyzed its energy R&D problems on a national basis before beginning the

roadmap effort. Another was uncertain about just how the roadmaps will

work. According to a laboratory director who was recently asked to

comment on the roadmap process, more emphasis needs to be placed on

the results that are expected from the roadmaps, rather than on the

process of creating them. Furthermore, roadmapping may be difficult in

some areas, especially for activities involving heavy regulatory

requirements.12 When we asked DOE officials about roadmapping, we were

told that it is still a work in progress and will not be connected directly to

the budget process for months or even years.

Other DOE actions are also described as works in progress. For example,

the use of performance-based contracts is relatively new, and the results

from the strengthened R&D Council are still uncertain. The R&D Council

includes the principal secretarial officers who oversee DOE’s R&D programs

and is chaired by the Under Secretary. According to DOE, the Council has a

new charter that will promote the integration and management of the

Department’s R&D.

One area in which DOE reports that it has made significant improvements is

reducing the burden of its oversight on the national laboratories. Although

some laboratory directors told DOE that their laboratories are still

micromanaged, most officials and experts we interviewed credited DOE

with reducing oversight as the major positive change since the Galvin Task

Force issued its report in 1995.

The Laboratory Operations

Board Was Created to

Provide Laboratory Focus

DOE’s major organizational action in response to recent advisory groups’

recommendations was to create the Laboratory Operations Board in

April 1995. The purpose of the Board is to provide dedicated management

attention to laboratory issues on a continuing basis. The Board includes 13

senior DOE officials and 9 external members drawn from the private sector,

academia, and the public. The external members have staggered, 6-year

terms and are required to assess DOE’s and the laboratories’ progress in

meeting such goals as management initiatives, productivity improvement,

mission focus, and programmatic accomplishments.

12Comments from the Laboratory Operations Board meeting, Feb. 24, 1998.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

The Board’s external members have issued four reports, the results of

which largely mirror past findings by the many previous advisory groups.

These reports have also concluded that DOE has made some progress in

addressing the problems noted by the Galvin Task Force but that progress

has been slow and many of the recommendations need further actions.

Several experts we interviewed generally viewed the Board positively.

Some, however, recognized that the Board’s limited advisory role is not a

substitute for strong DOE leadership and organizational accountability. One

expert commented that the effectiveness of the Board was diminished by

the fact that it meets too infrequently (quarterly) and has had too many

changes in membership to function as an effective adviser. Other experts

agreed but indicated that the Board still has had a positive influence on

reforming the laboratory system. One expert said that the Board’s

membership is not properly balanced between internal and external

members (although originally specifying 8 of each, the Board’s charter was

recently changed to require 13 DOE members and only 9 external

members). Another expert indicated that the Board could increase its

effectiveness by more carefully setting an agenda for each year and then

aggressively monitoring progress to improve its management of the

laboratory system.

Laboratory officials we interviewed also viewed the Board in generally

positive terms; some commented that the Board’s presence gives the

laboratories a much needed voice in headquarters. Others noted that the

Board could eventually play a role in integrating the laboratories’ R&D

work across program lines, thereby addressing a major concern about the

laboratories’ lack of integration noted by past advisory groups.

Although the Board can be an effective source of direction and guidance

for the laboratories, it has no authority to carry out reform operations.

One expert said that even though the Board monitors the progress of

reform and makes recommendations, it is still advisory and cannot

coordinate or direct specific actions.

Laboratory Directors Have

Concerns About Some

DOE Actions

DOE requested comments from the laboratory directors on a draft of its

response to our request for information about the actions DOE is taking to

meet the advisory groups’ recommendations. Some of the directors raised

questions about both the accuracy of DOE’s reported actions and their

applicability at the laboratory level. For example, some laboratory officials

Page 10 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

believe little progress has been made in meeting past recommendations to

provide more focus on the laboratories’ missions:

“[This] remains in the future. We have seen nothing yet.”

“The response appears to sidestep the important need for lab-focused budgeting and

strategic planning. The response discusses strategic planning in terms of DOE roadmaps for

each program, not in terms of plans for each lab. Many labs continue to have a broad

mission which crosses several [programs]. . . . While there may be an ongoing review by the

[program officers], the labs have no evidence this is occurring and there have been no

actions to address this.”

“The [Galvin Task Force] wanted one clear lead lab in each mission or program, and DOE

did not do that; there are 2 to 4 “principal” labs for each major business. Even for major

program areas, 12 of the 15 programs listed in the department’s laboratory mission plan

have more than one laboratory listed as primary performer.”

“. . . it is not clear that DOE has made any significant progress as the response implies. . . .”

In commenting on DOE’s response to the Galvin Task Force’s

recommendation that DOE reorganize to provide better integration in

applied energy programs, two laboratory directors responded as follows:

“[The] tone of the response in [DOE’s response] is a bit more optimistic than actual

experience in the field justifies. . . . Only modest improvements have occurred to 

this point. . . .”

“No reorganization has occurred . . . no integration has occurred.”

Another laboratory director commented on DOE’s response to the Galvin

Task Force’s recommendation that DOE establish mechanisms to manage

multiprogram laboratories as a system. According to the director,

“the examples provided to substantiate the labs working together as a system are not all

new, some were in place when [the Galvin Task Force] wrote [its] report. Also, there have

been a number of meetings between the multi-program labs but that is the extent of any

progress in this area (little change has been made).”

In response to the Galvin Task Force’s recommendation that the

laboratories be given a greater role in environmental management, one

laboratory director said,

Page 11 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

“The labs have largely been held at arm’s length rather than included as part of the team.

There have been recent efforts to correct this but there is no plan or action in place to

correct it.”

Additionally, when we asked several laboratory officials for examples of

their progress in responding to past advisory groups, most spoke of

actions they have taken on their own initiative. Few could cite an example

of a step taken in direct response to a DOE action. For example, several

laboratory officials cited an increased level of cooperation and

coordination among the laboratories involved with similar R&D activities.

They also mentioned adopting “best business practices” to increase

productivity, reduce overhead costs, and measure progress by improved

metrics. However, many laboratory officials told us that many of their

actions were taken to meet other demands, such as legislative and

regulatory mandates, rather than as direct responses to the studies’

recommendations or to DOE’s policies.

DOE Lacks an Effective

Strategy for Managing

Recommended Changes

Despite its efforts to respond to the advisory groups’ recommendations,

DOE has not established either a comprehensive plan with goals,

objectives, and performance measures or a system for tracking results and

measuring accountability. As a result, DOE is unable to document its

progress and cannot show how its actions address the major issues raised

by the advisory groups. Experts we contacted noted that while DOE is

establishing performance measures for gauging how well its contractors

manage the laboratories, DOE itself lacks any such measurement system for

ensuring that the objectives based on the advisory groups’

recommendations are met.

Organizational Weaknesses

Are Preventing Laboratory

Management Reform

We, along with past advisory groups and internal DOE studies, have often

reported on DOE’s complex organizational structure and the problems in

accountability that result from unclear chains of command among

headquarters, field offices, and the laboratories. For example, a 1997 DOE

report stated that

“lack of clarity, inconsistency, and variability in the relationship between headquarters

management and field organizations has been a longstanding criticism of DOE operations.

This is particularly true in situations when several headquarters programs fund activities at

laboratories. . . .”13

13DOE Action Plan for Improved Management of Brookhaven National Laboratory, DOE (July 1997).

Page 12 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

DOE’s Laboratory Operations Board also reported in 1997 on DOE’s

organizational problems, noting that there were inefficiencies due to DOE’s

complicated management structure. The Board recommended that DOE

undertake a major effort to rationalize and simplify its headquarters and

field management structure to clarify roles and responsibilities.

Similarly, the 1997 IDA report cited serious flaws in DOE’s organizational

structure. Noting long-standing concerns in DOE about how best to define

the relationships between field offices and the headquarters program

offices that sponsor work, the Institute concluded that “the overall picture

that emerges is one of considerable confusion over vertical relationships

and the roles of line and staff officials.”

DOE’s complex organization stems from the multiple levels of reporting

that exist between the laboratories, field offices (called operations

offices), and headquarters program offices. DOE’s laboratories are funded

and directed by program offices—the nine largest laboratories are funded

by many different DOE program offices. The program office that usually

provides the dominant funding serves as the laboratory’s “landlord”. The

landlord program office is responsible for sitewide management at the

laboratory and coordinates crosscutting issues, such as compliance with

environment, safety, and health requirements at the laboratories. DOE’s

Energy Research is landlord to several laboratories, including the

Brookhaven and Lawrence Berkeley laboratories. Defense Programs is the

landlord for the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore national

laboratories. The program offices, in turn, report to either the Deputy

Secretary or the Under Secretary.

Further complicating reporting, DOE assigns each laboratory to a field

operations office, whose director serves as the contract manager and also

prepares the laboratory’s annual appraisal. The operations office,

however, reports to a separate headquarters office under the Deputy

Secretary, not to the program office that supplies the funding. Thus, while

the Los Alamos National Laboratory is primarily funded by Defense

Programs, it reports to a field manager who reports to another part of the

agency.

As a consequence of DOE’s complex structure, IDA reported that unclear

chains of command led to the weak integration of programs and functions

across the Department, wide variations among field activities and

relationships and processes, and confusion over the difference between

line and staff roles.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

Weaknesses in DOE’s ability to manage the laboratories as an integrated

system of R&D facilities is one the most persistent findings from past

advisory groups, as well as from our 1995 management review of

laboratory issues. We concluded that DOE had not coordinated the

laboratories’ efforts as part of a diversified research system to solve

national problems. Instead, DOE was managing the laboratories on a

program-by-program basis. We recommended that DOE evaluate

alternatives for managing the laboratories that would more fully support

the achievement of clear and coordinated missions. To help achieve this

goal, we said that DOE should strengthen the Office of Laboratory

Management to facilitate the laboratories’ cooperation and resolve

management issues across all DOE program areas. DOE did not strengthen

this office. DOE’s primary response to our recommendations and those

made by the Galvin Task Force was creating the Laboratory Operations

Board.

A further consequence of no central laboratory authority is the inability to

track and enforce laboratory reforms. Experts we interviewed cited DOE’s

complex structure and lack of a strong central laboratory authority as

hindering the effective implementation of advisory groups’

recommendations. Comments made to us included the following:

“DOE’s organization is a mess. You cannot tell who is the boss. DOE would be much more

effective if layers were removed.”

“DOE has not been responsive to recommendations for organizational changes and

improvements in [reporting] relationships.”

Experts we consulted noted that DOE’s organizational weaknesses prevent

reform. According to experts, DOE’s establishment of working groups to

implement recommendations can be helpful for guiding reform, but these

groups often lack the authority to make critical decisions or to enforce

needed reforms. One expert commented that “the current DOE

organizational structure is outdated . . . there is no DOE leadership to

implement changes.”

We believe these organizational weaknesses are a major reason why DOE

has been unable to develop long-term solutions to the recurring problems

reported by advisory groups. The absence of a senior official in the

Department with program and administrative authority over the

operations of all the laboratories prevents effective management of the

laboratories on an ongoing basis.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

As far back as 1982, an advisory group recognized the need for a strong

central focus to manage the laboratories’ activities. In its 1982 report, DOE’s

Energy Research Advisory Board noted “layering and fractionation of

managerial and research and development responsibilities in DOE on an

excessive number of horizontal and vertical levels. . . .”14 The Board

recommended that DOE designate a high level official, such as a Deputy

Under Secretary, whose sole function would be to act as DOE’s chief

laboratory executive. Although DOE did not make this change, the Under

Secretary has assumed responsibility for ensuring that laboratory reforms

are accomplished.

Conclusions Despite many studies identifying similar deficiencies in the management of

DOE’s national laboratories, fundamental change remains an elusive goal.

While the Department has many steps in process to improve its

management of the laboratories—such as new strategic planning tools and

the Laboratory Operations Board—the results of these efforts may be long

in coming and may fall short of expectations. Other actions DOE is taking

are focused more on process than on results, and most are still

incomplete, making it difficult to show how DOE intends to direct the

laboratories’ missions and manage them more effectively as an integrated

system—a major recommendation of past advisory groups. The

Department has not developed a way to show how its actions will result in

practical and permanent laboratory reform. We believe that without a

strategy for ensuring that reforms actually take place, DOE will make only

limited progress in achieving meaningful reforms.

Establishing accountability for ensuring that its actions will take place in a

timely manner is a challenge for DOE. The Department’s complex

organizational structure creates unclear lines of authority that dilute

accountability and make reforms difficult to achieve. In our 1995

management review of DOE’s laboratories, we reported that if DOE is unable

to refocus the laboratories’ missions and develop a management approach

consistent with these new missions, the Congress may wish to consider

alternatives to the present relationships between DOE and the laboratories.

Such alternatives might include placing the laboratories under the control

of different agencies or creating a separate structure for the sole purpose

of developing a consensus on the laboratories’ missions. Because of DOE’s

uncertain progress in reforming the laboratories’ management, we

14The Department of Energy Multiprogram Laboratories: A Report of the Energy Research Advisory

Board to the United States Department of Energy (Sept. 1982).

Page 15 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

continue to believe that the Congress may wish to consider such

alternatives.

Recommendation to

the Secretary of

Energy

To ensure the timely and effective implementation of recommendations

from the many past laboratory advisory groups, we recommend that the

Secretary of Energy develop a comprehensive strategy with objectives,

milestones, DOE offices and laboratories responsible for implementation

actions, performance measures that will be used to assess success in

meeting implementation objectives, a tracking system to monitor progress,

and regular progress reports on the status of implementation.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment.

Although DOE did not comment directly on our conclusions and

recommendation, the Department said that we did not take into account

the full range of changes that it has undertaken. Changes discussed by DOE

include a series of initiatives implemented to strengthen management,

streamline the strategic planning processes, and enhance interactions

between DOE and the laboratories. The Department also said that the

cumulative effect of these changes reflects significant progress in

implementing the recommendations of past advisory groups.

While stating that much has been accomplished to improve the

management of the national laboratories, DOE also acknowledges that

more needs to be done to ensure a fully integrated management system,

including better focusing the laboratories’ missions and tying them to the

annual budget process. DOE anticipates that these actions will take at least

2 more years to accomplish.

In preparing our report, we considered the actions the Department reports

it has taken to implement past recommendations from laboratory advisory

groups. While the types of reported actions are positive, progress made

toward the goals and objectives of reform cannot be determined without a

plan for measuring progress. As we state in our report, some laboratory

directors have reported to DOE that they have not seen the results of some

of these actions at their level. We continue to believe that DOE needs to

monitor, measure, and evaluate its progress in accomplishing reforms. If it

does not do so, it will have difficulty holding its managers accountable for

making the needed changes and determining if funds are being spent

wisely on the reform process.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
B-280451 

Appendix VI includes DOE’s comments and our response.

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 and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will make

copies available to other interested parties on request.

Our review was performed from December 1997 through August 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See

appendix V for a description of our scope and methodology.

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

(202) 512-3841. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VII.

Victor S. Rezendes

Director, Energy, Resources,

 and Science Issues

Page 17 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Department of

Energy’s Laboratories

20

Appendix II 

Related Studies on

National Laboratories

21

Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to

Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

24

Appendix IV 

External Experts

Consulted by GAO

47

Appendix V 

Scope and

Methodology

49

Appendix VI 

Comments From the

Department of Energy

51

Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to

This Report

58

Page 18 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Contents

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy

GAO General Accounting Office

DOD Department of Defense

IDA Institute for Defense Analyses

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

R&D research and development

Page 19 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix I 

Department of Energy’s Laboratories

Dollars in millions

Laboratory Contractor Location

Estimated fiscal

year 1998 budget

authority

Multiprogram laboratories

Argonne National Laboratory University of Chicago Chicago, IL $522

Brookhaven National Laboratory Brookhaven Science Associates Upton, NY 417

Idaho National Engineering Laboratory Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Co. Idaho Falls, ID 783

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory University of California Berkeley, CA 368

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory University of California Livermore, CA 1,866

Los Alamos National Laboratory University of California Los Alamos, NM 1,345

Oak Ridge National Laboratory Lockheed Martin Energy Research Oak Ridge, TN 685

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Battelle Memorial Institute Richland, WA 448

Sandia National Laboratories Sandia Corp. (Lockheed Martin) NM and CA 1,358

Program-dedicated laboratories

Ames Laboratory Iowa State University Ames, IA 31

Federal Energy Technology Center Federally staffed PA and WV 973a

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory University Research Assoc., Inc. Batavia, IL 271

National Renewable Energy Laboratory Midwest Research Institute Golden, CO 192

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and

Education

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Oak Ridge, TN

85

Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory Princeton University Princeton, NJ 81

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Stanford University Palo Alto, CA 185

Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator

Facility

Southeastern Univ. Research Assoc., Inc. Newport News, VA

67

Specific-mission laboratories

Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory Westinghouse Electric Corp. West Mifflin, PA 324a

Environmental Measurements Laboratory Federally staffed New York, NY 10a

Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory KAPL, Inc. (Lockheed Martin) Niskayuna, NY 286a

New Brunswick Laboratory Federally staffed Argonne, IL 4a

Radiological and Environmental Sciences

Laboratory

Federally staffed Idaho Falls, ID

5a

Savannah River Technology Center Westinghouse Savannah River Co. Aiken, SC 194a

Note: This list includes only laboratories owned by the Department of Energy (DOE) and operated

either under a management and operating contract or by DOE employees. DOE funds other

laboratories through grants to and cooperative agreements with universities.

aReflects a prior year’s value carried forward.

Source: DOE (July 14, 1998).

Page 20 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix II 

Related Studies on National Laboratories

Department of Energy: Clearer Missions and Better Management Are

Needed at the National Laboratories (GAO/T-RCED-98-25, Oct. 9, 1997).

External Members of the Laboratory Operations Board Analysis of

Headquarter and Field Structure Issues, Secretary of Energy Advisory

Board, DOE (Sept. 30, 1997).

Third Report of the External Members of the Department of Energy

Laboratory Operations Board, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, DOE

(Sept. 1997).

DOE Action Plan for Improved Management of Brookhaven National

Laboratory, DOE (July 1997).

The Organization and Management of the Nuclear Weapons Program,

Institute for Defense Analyses (Mar. 1997).

Status of Federal Laboratory Reforms. The Report of the Executive Office

of the President Working Group on the Implementation of Presidential

Decision Directive PDD/NSTC-5, Office of Science and Technology Policy,

Executive Office of the President (Mar. 1997).

Roles and Responsibilities of the DOE Nuclear Weapons Laboratories in

the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program (DOE/DP-97000280,

Dec. 1996).

Second Report of the External Members of the Department of Energy

Laboratory Operations Board, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, DOE

(Sept. 10, 1996).

First Report of the External Members of the Department of Energy

Laboratory Operations Board, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, DOE

(Oct. 26, 1995).

Future of Major Federal Laboratories, National Science and Technology

Council (Aug. 1995).

Energy R&D: Shaping Our Nation’s Future in a Competitive World, Final

Report of the Task Force on Strategic Energy Research and Development,

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, DOE (June 1995).

Page 21 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix II 

Related Studies on National Laboratories

Interagency Federal Laboratory Review Final Report, Office of Science

and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President (May 15, 1995).

Department of Energy: Alternatives for Clearer Missions and Better

Management at the National Laboratories (GAO/T-RCED-95-128, Mar. 9, 1995).

Report of the Department of Energy for the Interagency Federal

Laboratory Review in Response to Presidential Review Directive/NSTC-1

(Mar. 1995).

Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories,

Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Alternative Futures for

the Department of Energy National Laboratories, DOE (Feb. 1995).

Department of Energy: National Laboratories Need Clearer Missions and

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

DOE’s National Laboratories: Adopting New Missions and Managing

Effectively Pose Significant Challenges (GAO/T-RCED-94-113, Feb. 3, 1994).

Changes and Challenges at the Department of Energy Laboratories: Final

Draft Report of the Missions of the Laboratories Priority Team, DOE

(1993).

Final Report, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (1992).

U.S. Economic Competitiveness: A New Mission for the DOE Defense

Programs’ Laboratories, Roger Werne, Associate Director for Engineering,

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Nov. 1992).

A Report to the Secretary on the Department of Energy National

Laboratories, Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on the

Department of Energy National Laboratories, DOE (July 30, 1992).

Progress Report on Implementing the Recommendations of the White

House Science Council’s Federal Laboratory Review Panel, Office of

Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President

(July 1984).

The Management of Research Institutions: A Look at Government

Laboratories, Hans Mark and Arnold Levine, Scientific and Technical

Page 22 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix II 

Related Studies on National Laboratories

Information Branch, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

(1984).

Report of the White House Science Council Federal Laboratory Review

Panel, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the

President (May 20, 1983).

President’s Private Sector Survey on Cost Control Report on the

Department of Energy, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1983).

The Department of Energy Multiprogram Laboratories: A Report of the

Energy Research Advisory Board to the United States Department of

Energy (Sept. 1982).

Final Report of the Multiprogram Laboratory Panel, Volume II: Support

Studies, Oak Ridge National Laboratory (Sept. 1982).

The Multiprogram Laboratories: A National Resource for Nonnuclear

Energy Research, Development and Demonstration (GAO/EMD-78-62, Mar. 22,

1978).

Page 23 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Note: Abbreviations used

in this appendix

are listed at the end.

Page 24 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 25 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 26 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 27 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 28 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 29 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 30 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 31 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 32 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 33 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 34 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 35 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 36 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 37 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 38 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 39 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 40 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 41 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 42 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Page 43 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

Abbreviations Used in

Appendix III

ASCI Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative

COO Chief Operating Officer

CRADA Cooperative Research and Development Agreement

CTBT Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

DARHT Dual-Axis Radiographic Hydrodynamic Testing Facility

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOIT Development of On-site Innovative Technologies

DP Office of Defense Programs

DPAG Defense Programs Analysis Group

DP-10 Office of Defense Programs for Research and Development

DP-20 Office of Defense Programs, Military Application

and Stockpile Management

DP-45 Office of Defense Programs for Program Support,

Technical and Environmental Support

EE Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

ER Office of Energy Research

EM Environmental Management

EMAB Environmental Management Advisory Board

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ES&H environment, safety and health

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

Page 44 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

FE Office of Fossil Energy

FTE full-time equivalent

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

HQ DP Headquarters, Office of Defense Programs

IDA Institute for Defense Analyses

ISM integrated safety management

KCP Kansas City Plant

LAMPF Los Alamos Meson Physics Experiment

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LANSCE Los Alamos Neutron Scattering Facility

LDRD Laboratory Directed Research and Development

LIVI Laboratory Institutional Vitality Initiative

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

LOB Laboratory Operations Board

M&I management and integration contract

M&O management and operating

NE Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology

NIF National Ignition Facility

NIH National Institutes of Health

NN Office of Nonproliferation and National Security

NSF National Science Foundation

Page 45 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix III 

DOE’s Responses to Past Advisory Groups’

Recommendations

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

O&M operations and maintenance

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSTP Office and Science and Technology Policy

PCAST President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and

Technology

PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

PNGV Partnership for New Generation Vehicles

PSO Program Secretarial Officer

R&D research and development

RIF involuntary separation

SBSS Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship

SEAB Secretary of Energy Advisory Board

SLEP Stockpile Life Extension Program

SMIC Stockpile Management Integration Council

Page 46 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix IV 

External Experts Consulted by GAO

DOE’s Laboratory

Operations Board,

External Members

Dr. John P. McTague (Vice Chairman)

Vice President, Technical Affairs

Ford Motor Company

Dr. Robert P. Bringer

Staff Vice-President, Environmental Technology and Services (Retired)

3M Corporation

Dr. Paul A. Fleury

Dean, School of Engineering

University of New Mexico

Dr. Paul Gilman

Executive Director, Commission of Life Sciences

National Academy of Sciences

Dr. Alexander MacLachlan

Senior Vice President and Chief Technical Officer (Retired)

E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company

Dr. Maxine Savitz

General Manager, Allied Signal Aerospace

Ceramic Components

Rear Admiral Robert H. Wertheim, U.S. Navy (Retired)

Consultant

Science Applications International Corporation

Galvin Task Force Robert Galvin (Chairman)

Chairman, Executive Committee

Motorola, Inc.

Dr. Henry Kendall

Professor of Physics

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Herbert York

Director Emeritus

Institute for Global Conflict and Cooperation

Page 47 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix IV 

External Experts Consulted by GAO

Secretary of Energy

Advisory Board

Dr. Walter E. Massey (Chairman)

President

Morehouse College

Dr. Leon Lederman

Director Emeritus

Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

Marilyn Lloyd

Consultant

The Lloyd Group

Institute for Defense

Analyses

Michael Leonard

Division Director

Strategy, Forces and Resources Division

Dr. David R. Graham

Assistant Director

Strategy, Forces and Resources Division

Dr. James D. Silk

Assistant Director

Science and Technology Division

Yergin Task Force Dr. Larry Papay

Senior Vice President and Manager of Research and Development

Bechtel Corporation

Other Dr. Alvin W. Trivelpiece

Director

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Page 48 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix V 

Scope and Methodology

To determine the recommendations that have been made by past advisory

groups and the actions DOE has taken in response to these

recommendations, we identified findings and recommendations from past

studies on DOE’s national laboratories. While we examined studies on the

laboratories dating back 25 years—to gain a more complete understanding

of findings from past reviews of the laboratories’ operations—as agreed

with DOE, we concentrated on only the most recent advisory groups’

recommendations to determine DOE’s specific responses. We provided DOE

with a list of the recommendations from the eight most recent advisory

group studies and asked the Department to indicate what actions it has

taken and is taking to address each of these recommendations. Appendix

III contains DOE’s response. Appendix II lists all of the past studies of the

laboratories’ operations.

To provide an outside perspective on the actions DOE indicated it has taken

in response to the recommendations of past advisory groups, we

interviewed 18 external experts. We judgmentally selected these experts

on the basis of their experience and familiarity with DOE’s laboratory

system. We included persons external to DOE and the executive branch

who were involved in completing each of the eight most recent studies

with recommendations. Our list of experts included present external

members of DOE’s Laboratory Operations Board, selected members of the

Galvin Task Force, selected members of the Secretary of Energy Advisory

Board, and representatives of the Institute for Defense Analyses. DOE

concurred with our list and did not suggest additional experts. Before

conducting our interviews, we provided each expert with the list of

recommendations from past advisory groups and DOE’s responses to the

recommendations. We then asked the experts to provide their comments

on those responses. A list of the external experts we contacted appears in

appendix IV.

To obtain the views of laboratory officials, we visited the following

laboratories: Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National

Laboratory in New Mexico, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the Stanford Linear

Accelerator Center in California, and the National Renewable Energy

Laboratory in Colorado. We asked officials at these laboratories to

comment on the list of recommendations from past advisory groups and

DOE’s responses, as well as identify any actions taken. We also interviewed

DOE officials responsible for overseeing these laboratories. These officials

were from DOE’s operations offices in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and

Oakland, California, and DOE’s site or area offices in Albuquerque and

Page 49 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix V 

Scope and Methodology

Santa Fe, New Mexico; Berkeley, Livermore, Palo Alto, California, and

Golden, Colorado.

We conducted our review from December 1997 through August 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 50 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Energy

See comment 1.

Page 51 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Energy

See comment 2.

See comment 3.

Page 52 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Energy

See comment 4.

Page 53 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Energy

See comment 5.

Page 54 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 55 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Energy

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Energy’s letter

dated August 3, 1998.

1. We agree that DOE’s multiprogram laboratories can be focused on more

than a single mission area and that varying weights can be assigned to that

mission area at different laboratories. We also agree with DOE’s comment

that further focusing of efforts at the laboratories is needed. This is a

common finding from past advisory groups that have studied the

laboratories.

2. We agree that the DOE and laboratory officials on the Laboratory

Operations Board are in a position to recommend management

improvements. Experts we interviewed told us that the Board has had a

positive influence. But, as an advisory group, the Board does not have the

authority to direct the implementation of needed changes; it must rely on

its internal members to effect change. As we stated in our report, the

Board’s limited advisory role is not a substitute for strong DOE leadership

and organizational accountability.

As we also stated in our report, the Department’s efforts to integrate goals

and research programs through activities such as roadmapping are useful.

However, we believe that such efforts will be successful only if they are

integrated into DOE’s budget process. Although such integration has not yet

taken place, we applaud DOE’s plans to integrate the roadmapping process

with the Department’s budget process.

3. DOE reports that the laboratories have made progress in working in

partnerships and as a system, noting that laboratory directors themselves

have initiated further multilaboratory coordinated efforts. Laboratory

directors we contacted also cited these partnerships but commented that

they were often created without DOE’s direction and guidance.

Furthermore, one laboratory director said that DOE should establish more

lead laboratories for these partnerships and that too many laboratories are

involved in some programs.

As we stated in our report, weaknesses in DOE’s ability to manage the

laboratories as an integrated system of research and development facilities

is one of the most persistent findings from past advisory groups.

4. Although we did not evaluate the improvements DOE cited in reducing its

oversight of the laboratories, experts and laboratory officials credited DOE

with reducing its oversight of the laboratories as a major change in

Page 56 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix VI 

Comments From the Department of Energy

response to the Galvin Task Force’s report. Also, we did not analyze the

effect of micromanagement on research and development as part of this

report.

5. Whether the Department considers the past studies’ recommendations

as goals or single objectives to be met, we believe that DOE needs to

measure its progress in meeting these goals or objectives. DOE is not doing

so yet. Although DOE is developing performance measures for its

laboratory contractors as part of its “performance-based management

system,” it has not yet established performance measures to ensure that its

own ongoing reform efforts are managed effectively. Without such

measures, DOE cannot determine how much progress it has achieved.

We also agree with DOE that senior management’s commitment to

performance-based management and an improved planning and budget

process is essential to the achievement of a long-term, stronger

management system for its laboratory system. We believe an effective

implementation plan with performance measures, milestones, and a

system for tracking progress will assist the Department in obtaining this

commitment and holding these managers accountable for achieving the

desired results.

While we agree with the Department that it is important to value outcomes

as well as outputs, we believe that past advisory groups’ recommendations

have often been repeated in subsequent studies because DOE has been

unable to effectively measure the outcomes and outputs of the reform

process. Without adequate measures for tracking progress, future studies

are likely to find the same management deficiencies.

Page 57 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
Appendix VII 

Major Contributors to This Report

Gary Boss, Assistant Director

Thomas Kingham, Evaluator-in-Charge

Michael E. Gilbert, Team Leader

William Lanouette, Senior Evaluator

James Crigler, Senior Evaluator

Duane Fitzgerald, Technical Adviser

(141136) Page 58 GAO/RCED-98-197 Uncertain Progress in Implementing Reforms
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