United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Subcommittee on Energy

and Water Development, Committee on

Appropriations, House of

Representatives

February 1999 DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY

Actions Necessary to

Improve DOE’s

Training Program

GAO/RCED-99-56

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-281789 

February 12, 1999

The Honorable Ron Packard

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy

 and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As requested, we examined the problems in the Department of Energy’s training program and

the changes that are needed to address those problems.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no

further distribution of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will

send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of Energy;

and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to

others upon request.

Please contact me on (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any questions about this report.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Victor S. Rezendes

Director, Energy, Resources,

 and Science Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose The Department of Energy (DOE) spent a total of about $379 million in

fiscal year 1997— the most recent year for which cost data are

available—on training (about $57 million for federal employees and about

$322 million for contractor employees). This total represents a reduction

of about $175 million in the amount DOE spent on training in fiscal year

1995. However, GAO reports issued in 1997 and 1998 on DOE’s training

program showed that further cost reductions and management

improvements are achievable. As a result, the Chairman, Subcommittee on

Energy and Water Development, House Committee on Appropriations,

asked GAO to determine the problems in DOE’s training program and the

changes that are needed to address those problems. Specifically, this

report (1) discusses DOE’s current process for setting its training budget,

(2) identifies opportunities to reduce the costs associated with DOE’s

training program, and (3) evaluates DOE’s draft plan for training its

employees in the future.

Background Within DOE, federal and contractor training is provided through a

decentralized training structure. DOE’s headquarters offices, field offices,

and contractors all have their own training programs and budgets and

dedicated staffs. The decentralization of DOE training has led to the

identification of certain problems, which the Department documented in a

1995 training review. Those problems included duplication and waste

associated with the development and delivery of both federal and

contractor training and a lack of consistency in the training provided

across the Department. The review concluded, among other things, that if

a DOE-wide training program were developed, tens of millions of dollars in

annual training costs could be avoided. During 1995, DOE developed a

strategic plan to correct its training problems. According to DOE officials,

however, the plan was not entirely successful because of a lack of funding.

In November 1997, DOE started drafting a new training plan that it hopes

will be made final early in calendar year 1999. The draft training plan lays

out a strategy for training DOE employees over 3 fiscal years (1999 through

2001).

Results in Brief DOE has not completed any of the critical steps identified in the Office of

Personnel Management’s and its own guidance that lead to the

development of a sound and defensible training budget. For instance, DOE

has not defined the training needs for various occupations, including

program managers and contractor oversight specialists. In addition, DOE

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Executive Summary

employees have generally not completed individual development plans,

and DOE offices have generally not prepared annual training plans.

DOE could reduce its training costs by eliminating certain nonmandatory

training and reducing duplicative and nonstandardized training across the

Department. About 90 percent of DOE’s training, according to a

departmental estimate, is not mandated by laws and/or regulations, but

DOE has not developed criteria on the type of nonmandatory training that is

appropriate. As a result, DOE offers a wide range of nonmandatory training

courses, such as a course on determining social styles in the workplace

and one on employees facing mid-life questions. Furthermore, because DOE

and its contractors independently develop and deliver training, duplicate

courses exist and nonstandardized training occurs across the Department.

DOE’s draft training plan has several shortcomings that may preclude it

from improving departmental training over fiscal years 1999 through 2001,

as intended. For example, the draft plan does not realistically estimate

what overall costs and overall savings will result from the plan; how the

plan will be financed, given DOE’s decentralized training resources; and

how DOE’s training centers of excellence will eliminate duplicative training,

as intended.1

 Moreover, even though DOE spent about 85 percent of its

fiscal year 1997 training expenditures on contractor employees, the draft

training plan does not address the steps necessary to improve contractor

training. DOE officials stated that they are aware of these shortcomings and

intend to address them in the final plan.

Principal Findings

DOE’s Budgeting for

Training Could Be

Improved

Office of Personnel Management and DOE guidance establish specific

critical steps to be followed in developing a training budget. GAO found

that DOE has not completed any of these critical steps. The first step is to

complete an assessment of occupational training needs. Occupational

needs refer to the training needs of groups of individuals, such as program

managers and contractor oversight specialists. GAO found that such an

assessment had not been conducted throughout DOE primarily because the

applicable departmental order on federal employee training contained no

provision for doing one. GAO believes that certain groups within DOE would

benefit from such an assessment because of the important nature of their

1

The mission of the centers of excellence is to provide high-quality training on topical areas that cut

across the entire Department.

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Executive Summary

work. Those groups include those involved in program management,

project management, and contractor oversight. Managers throughout DOE

told GAO that the lack of skilled staff in those groups is one of the

Department’s most fundamental problems.

After training needs have been established, individual employee

development plans should be completed, according to DOE training

officials. Collectively, these plans define the total training needs of

individuals within the Department and are to be used in developing DOE

offices’ annual training plans. GAO found, however, in reviewing six DOE

offices, that only about 33 percent of employees had completed a

development plan. Recognizing that few employee development plans

were being completed, DOE training officials established a goal in

November 1998 of having 90 percent of DOE employees complete such a

plan by December 31, 1999. Some DOE training managers interviewed were

not aware that the Department’s order on federal employee training

requires the completion of a development plan, with certain exceptions,

for 100 percent of its employees until so informed by GAO.

2

On the basis, in part, of the information in employee development plans,

DOE offices should prepare annual training plans. According to DOE, the

offices’ annual training plans provide the basis for any request for budget

funds. GAO found that training plans had not been completed for five of the

six offices it reviewed. For the sixth office, the plan did not contain certain

relevant information, including the estimated number of employees to be

trained, the type of training necessary, and the resources required to

provide that training.

DOE’s Spending on

Training Could Be Reduced

GAO identified two opportunities for reducing the costs associated with

training DOE and contractor employees. First, some nonmandatory training

could be reduced or eliminated. According to a departmental estimate,

about 90 percent of the training offered by DOE offices is not mandated by

laws and/or regulations, and DOE has not developed criteria on what type

of nonmandatory training is appropriate. Some nonmandatory training is

beneficial for career growth and professional development, such as

courses on effective writing and oral presentation skills. However, the

benefits of other nonmandatory training, such as (1) determining social

styles in the workplace, (2) employees facing mid-life questions, and

(3) defensive driving, seemed less clear.

2

The exceptions identified in the DOE order on federal employee training include temporary

employees and others for whom, by the nature of their position, training and development would result

in minimal benefit to the Department.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Executive Summary

Second, DOE’s headquarters offices, field offices, and contractors have

developed and delivered duplicative courses and nonstandardized training

across the Department. In an era of employee downsizing and reduced

budgets, it seems inefficient to permit DOE’s headquarters offices, field

offices, and contractors to develop and deliver courses such as project

management, hazardous worker training, and occupational safety and

health independently. Rather than develop a course once and deliver it

departmentwide, DOE’s decentralized training structure permits a generally

applicable course to be developed many times over and delivered in

different ways.

DOE’s Training Plan Could

Be Improved

In 1997 and 1998, DOE drafted a new training plan that lays out a strategy

for training federal employees over fiscal years 1999 through 2001. The

plan contains 18 performance expectations to be accomplished. Those

expectations include, for instance, that (1) DOE’s average training

expenditures per employee will be in alignment with similar federal

agencies and the private sector by December 31, 1999, and (2) six training

centers of excellence will be established by December 31, 2000.

However, the new plan, as currently drafted, has several shortcomings.

First, GAO found that the plan’s estimate of the overall costs to implement

the plan and the overall savings to be achieved from it were not realistic.

According to DOE training officials, it is important that a realistic estimate

be included in the plan to solicit the support needed from senior DOE

management and the funding needed from the Congress. GAO found,

however, that the plan provides a limited projection of the overall costs to

implement the plan and overstates the overall savings to be realized from

it. For example, DOE attributed about $1.7 million in cost savings in the

plan to one of the Department’s two existing centers of excellence but did

not offset that cost savings against the approximately $1.9 million in costs

to operate the center. Thus, it is unclear whether the plan’s savings will

exceed the plan’s costs.

Second, the plan does not explain how DOE’s decentralized training

resources will be committed to finance the plan. At present, few DOE

offices have actively participated in developing the performance

expectations contained in the plan. Whether other DOE offices that have

not been actively involved in the plan will financially support it, when

completed, remains to be seen. For the plan to be successful, full support

from offices throughout DOE will be necessary.

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Executive Summary

Third, the plan does not present a policy regarding the use of the

Department’s centers of excellence. The centers are a central feature of

the training plan. By operating the centers, DOE intends to effectively

eliminate duplicative training within the Department. However, the plan

does not present a policy on the use of the centers or mandate that the

centers will be the sole source for training within the Department on a

topical area, such as project management or occupational safety and

health. As a result, one center—the National Environmental Training

Office—has not eliminated but has actually delivered training courses that

already existed within the Department.

Fourth, the plan does not identify what steps should be taken to improve

contractor employees’ training. DOE has been aware of contractor training

problems since as early as 1995. In addition, DOE spent about 85 percent of

its fiscal year 1997 training funds on contractor training. However, DOE has

not addressed contractor training problems in any of its training plans.

Specifically, GAO noted that the new draft training plan does not identify

the need for DOE to (1) establish a departmental order on developing

contractor training programs and budgets; (2) incorporate a standard set

of performance measures into the Department’s performance-based

contracts regarding contractor training efficiency and effectiveness; and

(3) clarify the roles and responsibilities of DOE’s headquarters offices for

the oversight of contractor training departmentwide. DOE officials stated

that they are aware of the shortcomings in its training plan and now intend

to address them in the final plan.

Recommendations In order to improve DOE’s training program, reduce training costs, and

improve the draft training plan, GAO is making a series of

recommendations in this report, including having the Secretary

(1) expeditiously conduct a comprehensive assessment of occupational

training needs throughout the Department; (2) establish criteria on the

type of nonmandatory training that is appropriate and review and

eliminate nonmandatory training courses given across DOE that do not

meet those criteria; (3) standardize the development and delivery of

training that is generally applicable across DOE; (4) realistically estimate

the overall costs to implement and the overall savings to be achieved from

the Department’s new training plan; and (5) identify in the new training

plan the steps necessary to improve contractor training performance. At a

minimum, those steps should include incorporating a standard set of

performance measures for training into the Department’s

performance-based contracts.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Executive Summary

Agency Comments GAO provided copies of a draft of this report to DOE for its review and

comment. DOE agreed with the report’s recommendations, except for GAO’s

recommendation that the Department expeditiously complete a

comprehensive assessment of occupational training needs. DOE indicated

that it had already completed an assessment of occupational training

needs for certain occupational groups and had initiated a new program to

train research and development program managers. DOE also stated,

however, it will only continue conducting these assessments as funding

constraints and departmental priorities allow. While GAO is encouraged by

the actions that DOE has already taken, GAO is concerned that funding

constraints and/or other departmental priorities may, in some way, hinder

the completion of a comprehensive assessment of occupational needs. As

pointed out in this report, a lack of skilled staff is one of the most

fundamental problems in the Department. Accordingly, GAO continues to

believe that DOE should expeditiously complete a comprehensive

assessment of occupational training needs. DOE’s complete response is

presented in appendix I.

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Perspective on DOE

Training

10

DOE’s System of Training 10

DOE’s Annual Expenditures on Training 11

DOE’s Training Expenditures Could Be Lower 11

Agency Comments 13

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 13

Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of

Training Could Be

Improved

16

DOE’s Budget Process for Training Could Be Improved 16

DOE’s Spending for Training Could Be Reduced 20

Conclusions 23

Recommendations 24

Agency Comments 25

Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training

Plan Could Be

Improved

26

DOE’s Plans to Improve Departmental Training Have Evolved 26

Overall Costs and Overall Savings From the Plan Have Not Been

Realistically Estimated

27

DOE Has Not Determined How the Department’s Decentralized

Training Resources Will Be Committed to Finance the Plan

28

A Policy Regarding the Use of the Department’s Centers of

Excellence Has Not Been Developed

29

The Steps Necessary to Improve Contractor Employee Training

Performance Have Not Been Identified

30

Conclusions 32

Recommendations 33

Agency Comments 33

Appendixes Appendix I: Comments From the Department of Energy 36

Appendix II: Major Contributors to This Report 40

Tables Table 1.1: DOE Expenditures on Training, Fiscal Years 1995-97 11

Table 1.2: Comparison of Federal Agency Training Data, Fiscal

Year 1997

12

Table 2.1: Percentage of Employees in Selected DOE

Headquarters Offices Who Have Completed an IDP, Fiscal Year

1998

19

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Contents

Table 2.2: Examples of Cost per Employee for DOE Contractor

Training Courses, Fiscal Year 1997

22

Abbreviations

DOE Department of Energy

IDP Individual Development Plan

Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 1 

Perspective on DOE Training

Within the Department of Energy (DOE), federal and contractor employee

training is provided through a decentralized training structure. DOE’s

headquarters offices, field offices, and contractors all have their own

training programs and budgets and dedicated staffs. These programs

provide training to federal and contractor employees on a wide variety of

subjects. Comparing fiscal year 1995 and fiscal year 1997, DOE’s

expenditures on training decreased by about $175 million, or about

32 percent. A comparison of DOE’s training expenditures with other federal

agencies and with the private sector indicates that DOE’s training

expenditures could be lower. DOE has also recognized this.

DOE’s System of

Training

Because DOE emphasizes decentralized management, it assigns the main

responsibility for employee training to individual DOE offices and

contractors. These organizations, in turn, have established their own

training programs and budgets with dedicated staffs to provide employee

training. At DOE’s headquarters, the Office of Management and

Administration has the main responsibility for DOE-wide training issues.

This office is responsible, for instance, for establishing DOE’s training

policies, procedures, and management plans.

The administration of training, however, largely falls within the purview of

DOE’s individual offices and contractors. Specifically, these organizations

are responsible for planning, providing resources for, developing and

delivering, and reporting on the training given to their employees. In

addition, these organizations are responsible for ensuring the efficient and

effective management of their training programs.

Generally, these organizations offer their employees three types of

training: general, career development, and performance development.

General training, which applies to all employees within the Department,

includes courses on such subjects as equal employment opportunity,

ethics, and security. Career development training, which supports the

career growth of employees, includes courses on such subjects as time

and stress management. Performance development training, which

supports the acquisition or improvement of work-related skills, includes a

wide range of courses, from technical courses on subjects such as nuclear

physics and chemistry to nontechnical courses on back care and hearing

conservation.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 1 

Perspective on DOE Training

DOE’s Annual

Expenditures on

Training

The Department spends hundreds of millions of dollars annually training

federal and contractor employees. According to DOE data, there has been a

significant reduction in DOE’s training expenditures—about

32 percent—comparing fiscal years 1995, and 1997 (see table 1.1).

Table 1.1: DOE Expenditures on

Training, Fiscal Years 1995-97

Training expenditures by fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Type of employee 1995 1996 1997

Federal $93.4 $93.5 $57.2

Contractor 461.0 382.3 322.2

Total expenditures $554.4 $475.8 $379.4

Note: The figures in the table include the costs of providing the training in-house or contracting

out for training. These figures also include the cost of employees’ salaries and, for the most part,

travel costs to attend training.

Source: DOE.

The reduction in DOE’s annual training expenditures from fiscal year 1995

through fiscal year 1997 can be attributed to several factors. Those factors

include (1) about a 13-percent decrease in the number of DOE and

contractor employees; (2) greater use of advanced training technologies,

such as computer-based learning; and (3) congressionally mandated

reductions in training funds.

DOE’s Training

Expenditures Could

Be Lower

DOE’s training expenditures could be lower, according to fiscal year 1997

data.3

 First, the amount spent on employee training varied widely among

DOE field offices that perform similar functions. For example, according to

DOE, the Department’s Richland and Savannah River Operations Offices

offered similar training, including courses on radiological worker training.

However, the Savannah River Operations Office spent less than $2,300 on

training per federal employee while the Richland Operations Office spent

over $4,500 per employee. Second, DOE’s average training expenditure per

federal employee was higher than most other federal agencies or major

private sector companies reviewed by the American Society for Training

and Development’s Benchmarking Forum.4

 Specifically, the Society’s

Benchmarking Forum collected and analyzed fiscal year 1997 training cost

data from numerous organizations, including DOE, several other federal

3

Information on training costs for fiscal year 1997 was the latest data available.

4

The Forum is a private consortium of organizations with a strong commitment to sharing training cost

information and seeking best training practices.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 1 

Perspective on DOE Training

agencies, and nearly 60 companies in the private sector. The data showed

that DOE’s average training expenditure of $1,808 per federal employee was

higher than most other federal agencies reviewed (see table 1.2). The data

also showed that DOE’s average training expenditure per federal employee

was about $300 higher than the private sector average. The private sector

companies included businesses of various types, including American

Telephone and Telegraph and the Dow Chemical Company.

Table 1.2: Comparison of Federal

Agency Training Data, Fiscal Year 1997 Training data

Agency Number of employees

Total training

expenditures per

employee

Department of Energy 15,290 $1,808

Centers for Disease Control

and Prevention 7,490 $689

Federal Aviation

Administration 48,000 $2,378

Food and Drug Administration 9,097 $1,387

National Institutes of Health 16,500 $537

Tennessee Valley Authority 15,211 $1,485

Source: GAO obtained the data from the agencies listed.

Similarly, for contractor employees, DOE’s training expenditures could be

lower, according to fiscal year 1997 data. First, the amount spent on

contractor employee training varied widely at DOE locations that perform

similar functions. For instance, the contractor supporting DOE’s Richland

Operations Office spent an average of about $1,510 per employee while the

contractor supporting the Savannah River Operations Office spent an

average of about $3,500 per employee. Second, the average training

expenditure per DOE contractor employee during fiscal year 1997 was

about $130 higher than the private sector average.5

DOE has also analyzed its training costs relative to these other

organizations and believes the analysis represents a good comparison of

training data. According to a DOE training official, the analysis shows, for

instance, that DOE’s costs per training day are still too high compared with

those of private sector companies.

5

A training expenditure of $130 per employee multiplied by 105,297 (the number of DOE contractor

employees in fiscal year 1997) equals a training cost of about $13.7 million.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 1 

Perspective on DOE Training

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report, DOE indicated that its current

training expenditure level of 2.5 percent to 3.0 percent of payroll was

comparable to similar, technology-intensive, large, private companies. We

noted, however, that DOE’s average training expenditure per federal

employee was higher than most other federal agencies or major private

sector companies reviewed by the American Society for Training and

Development’s Benchmarking Forum. DOE did not dispute that

information.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

As agreed with the Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water

Development, House Committee on Appropriations, we determined the

problems that exist with DOE’s training program and the changes that are

needed to address those problems. Specifically, this report (1) discusses

DOE’s current process for setting its training budget, (2) identifies

opportunities to reduce the costs associated with DOE’s training program,

and (3) evaluates DOE’s draft plan for training the Department’s employees

in the future.

To review the current process for setting the training budget, we contacted

both DOE headquarters and field office officials. At DOE headquarters, we

held extensive discussions with officials within the Office of Training and

Human Resource Development. This office has the lead responsibility for

drafting a new training plan that, when completed in early calendar year

1999, will lay out a strategy for improving DOE employee training over

fiscal years 1999 through 2001. We also held discussions with officials on

the Department’s Training and Development Management Council. This

council is responsible for overseeing the efforts to improve DOE’s training

program. In addition, we interviewed officials and reviewed training

activities of six DOE headquarters offices—the Offices of Defense

Programs; Environment, Safety, and Health; Energy Information

Administration; Environmental Management; Science (formerly Energy

Research); and Fossil Energy. These offices were selected because,

according to their staffing levels, they are some of the largest offices

within DOE headquarters. We further held discussions with officials at

selected DOE field locations, including officials at the Department’s two

training centers of excellence—the Nonproliferation and National Security

Institute in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and the National Environmental

Training Office in Aiken, South Carolina.6

 Generally, a center of excellence

6

The Nonproliferation and National Security Institute’s mission is to provide tactical training to DOE

contractors’ protective forces throughout the nation. The National Environmental Training Office’s

mission is to provide high-quality technical environmental training to federal and contractor

employees across DOE.

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 1 

Perspective on DOE Training

is a DOE organization that has been selected for its training, development,

and technical expertise in a topical area that cuts across the entire

Department.7

To identify opportunities to reduce the costs associated with DOE’s training

program, we reviewed various departmental documents. These included,

but were not limited to, (1) a DOE memorandum documenting the results of

the Department’s 1995 training review; (2) DOE’s 1995 and 1996 strategic

training implementation plans; (3) DOE’s 1998 draft training plan; and

(4) the minutes of the Training and Development Management Council. We

also relied on the GAO work done under three previous assignments:

(1) Department of Energy: Training Cost Data for Fiscal Years 1995

Through 1997 (GAO/RCED-97-140R, May 6, 1997); (2) Department of Energy:

Status of DOE’s Efforts to Improve Training (GAO/RCED-97-178R, June 27,

1997); and (3) Department of Energy: DOE Contractor Employee Training

(GAO/RCED-98-155R, May 8, 1998).

To further identify opportunities to reduce DOE’s training costs, we

compared DOE’s training costs with those of other federal agencies and the

private sector. Specifically, we contacted training officials both inside and

outside the federal government. Within the federal government, these

contacts included training officials with the Department of Health and

Human Services, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Aviation

Administration, and the Tennessee Valley Authority. These agencies, as

well as DOE, voluntarily provided training cost information to us and a

private organization, the American Society for Training and Development’s

Benchmarking Forum. Outside the federal government, we contacted an

official with the American Society for Training and Development’s

Benchmarking Forum, which had collected training cost information from

nearly 60 private sector companies. From the contacts made, training cost

information was obtained, analyzed, and compared with training cost

information we had obtained from DOE. Generally, comparing training cost

information from DOE and other federal agencies and the private sector

appeared appropriate. All organizations, for instance, offer their

employees a certain amount of technical skills training.8

 The training cost

information we obtained was for fiscal year 1997 and was the latest data

available.

7

Examples of topical area training include environmental management; safeguards and security;

project management; occupational safety and health; and hazardous worker training.

8

The American Society for Training and Development’s Benchmarking Forum defined technical skills

training as job-specific training that focuses on procedures, including the use of technology, to create

products, deliver services, or engage in processes. Technical skills training is provided to workers who

use technology or machinery in their jobs.

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 1 

Perspective on DOE Training

To evaluate DOE’s draft plan for training the Department’s employees in the

future, we contacted federal training officials both inside and outside of

the Department. Externally, these contacts included training officials with

the Office of Personnel Management; Defense Information Systems

Agency; Federal Emergency Management Agency; and Nuclear Regulatory

Commission. Within DOE headquarters, these contacts included officials

with the Offices of Science; Environmental Management; Environment,

Safety, and Health; Field Management; Procurement and Assistance

Management; and Human Resources Management. At DOE field locations,

these contacts included officials at the Nonproliferation and National

Security Institute; National Environmental Training Office; Richland

Operations Office; Rocky Flats Field Office; and Savannah River

Operations Office. In all cases, these officials were contacted to obtain

their views on the types of training problems DOE should be addressing in

its draft training plan.

We also reviewed various reports that have dealt with improving federal

employee training. These included, among others, Getting Results Through

Learning, Human Resource Development Council, June 1997; Leadership

for Change: Human Resource Development in the Federal Government, U.

S. Merit Systems Protection Board, July 1995; and Leadership for America:

Rebuilding the Public Service, The National Commission on the Public

Service, 1989.

We provided a draft of this report to DOE for its review and comment. DOE’s

comments are included as appendix I and are discussed in the chapters

where appropriate.

We conducted our work from June 1998 through January 1999 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

Two important aspects associated with the management of DOE training

could be improved. Those two are how DOE develops its training budgets

and how it spends its training funds. We found that DOE has not

successfully completed any of the critical steps necessary to develop a

sound and defensible training budget. Specifically, we noted that

occupational training needs have not been defined throughout the

Department and incorporated into employees’ individual development

plans (IDP); IDPs have generally not been prepared and used to support DOE

offices’ annual training plans; and annual training plans have generally not

been prepared and used to support DOE’s annual training budgets. With

respect to how DOE spends its training funds, we identified two factors that

account for the high costs associated with DOE training. Those factors are

that DOE offices and contractors offer a high percentage of training that is

not mandated by laws and/or regulations and that DOE’s offices and

contractors independently develop and deliver training. DOE, for its part, is

aware of the problems associated with its budgeting for and expenditure

of funds on training and is considering corrective actions. However, our

review raised questions regarding the direction and/or pace of DOE’s

actions.

DOE’s Budget Process

for Training Could Be

Improved

According to the Office of Personnel Management and DOE guidance,

certain steps are critical in developing a training budget. First, training

needs should be defined. Second, the training needs should be

incorporated into employees’ IDPs. Third, the IDPs should be used to

prepare annual training plans. The successful completion of these steps

supports the development of sound and defensible training budgets. We

found, however, that DOE has not successfully completed any of these

steps. Specifically, we found the following:

• Occupational training needs9 have not been defined throughout the

Department and incorporated into employees’ IDPs;

• IDPs have generally not been prepared and used to support DOE’s annual

training plans; and

• Annual training plans have generally not been prepared and used to

support DOE’s annual training budgets.

As a result, DOE’s annual training budgets are not directly tied to the

training needs of the Department. Instead, DOE’s annual training budgets

9

Occupational needs are the training needs of groups of individuals, such as program managers and

contractor oversight specialists.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

have generally been based on the amount of funding received in previous

fiscal years.

Training Needs Have Not

Been Defined

A training needs assessment is a critical initial step in developing a training

budget. According to Office of Personnel Management regulations, an

agency needs to assess its occupational training needs periodically.10 The

assessment evaluates what performance is desired within an agency and

what performance presently exists. When a gap exists, the assessment

identifies the training necessary to elevate performance to the level

desired. We found that DOE has not conducted a comprehensive

assessment of occupational needs throughout the Department.11

The primary reason that a comprehensive assessment has not been

conducted throughout DOE is that the Department’s order on federal

employee training contains no provision for doing one. Specifically, the

training order outlines the objectives and responsibilities for federal

employee training throughout the Department. It also outlines the

components essential to the administration of employee training. The

order does not, however, require that occupational training needs be

assessed.12 DOE training officials indicated that such an assessment had

been included in the preceding DOE order on employee training but was

deleted from the current order under the Department’s paperwork

reduction program.

During this and previous reviews of DOE activities, we have identified

several departmental occupational groups that would most likely benefit

from an assessment of occupational training needs. For instance, we

believe that property managers may not be adequately trained. Supporting

that view, we found that DOE recently surveyed 145 property managers and

determined that 65 (or about 45 percent) had received no formal property

management training. DOE also recently surveyed its field locations to

determine if project managers are being properly trained. DOE guidance

requires that employees who are project managers must be certified as

possessing certain skills and receiving certain training. However,

105 C.F.R. 410.203. This regulation is nonspecific on the frequency of an occupational training needs

assessment but suggests that such an assessment could be done as often as annually.

11DOE’s National Environmental Training Office has conducted an occupational needs assessment for

environmental management training for fiscal years 1997 and 1998.

12DOE Order 360.1 specifies that personnel involved in the safe operation of defense nuclear facilities

will have their technical skills assessed and will receive continuing training to maintain certain

necessary skills.

Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

preliminary data show that many project managers have not received

certification. For instance, DOE’s Savannah River Operations Office

reported that only 2 of its 33 project managers had been certified. We

further reported that managers throughout DOE believe that the lack of

skilled staff in program, project, and contractor oversight positions is one

of the Department’s most fundamental problems.13

Recognizing that certain occupational groups should have their training

needs assessed, DOE, in November 1998, proposed a revised order and

manual on federal employee training. The proposed manual states that an

occupational needs assessment must be completed at least every 5 years

once the revised order and manual are made final.14 In addition, the

manual notes that such an assessment must include, but not be limited to,

scientific and technical, acquisition, project management, and financial

management functions. The DOE training official responsible for drafting

the revised order and manual advised us that the 5-year assessment cycle

was arbitrarily chosen. Furthermore, the sequence in which various

occupational groups will be assessed has not yet been decided. DOE

officials expect the revised order to be made final in the spring of 1999.

IDPs Have Not Been

Prepared

After training needs have been established, IDPs should be prepared.

According to DOE’s training order, an IDP is required for all employees

within 60 days after they join the Department or transfer to a new position,

and these IDPs should be reviewed and updated annually.15 The IDPs

provide the mechanism to define total individual training needs within the

Department and are to be used in preparing DOE offices’ annual training

plans. Only a small percentage of the employees in the DOE offices we

reviewed have completed an IDP.

During 1998, we reviewed the training practices followed by six DOE

headquarters offices. Only one office had IDPs completed for more than

half of its employees. The six offices provided us with the estimates of

completed IDPs shown in table 2.1.

13Department of Energy: Opportunity to Improve Management of Major System Acquisitions

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

14The manual also states that each DOE office must identify annually its critical needs that, when met,

will be most effective in improving organizational and workplace performance.

15DOE’s training order does not require an IDP for temporary employees and for others for whom, by

the nature of their position, training and development would result in minimal benefit to the

Department.

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

Table 2.1: Percentage of Employees in

Selected DOE Headquarters Offices

Who Have Completed an IDP, Fiscal

Year 1998

Headquarters office

Percentage of employees who have

completed an IDP

Defense Programs 18

Environment, Safety, and Health 81

Energy Information Administration 36

Environmental Management 0

Fossil Energy 30

Science 40

Source: DOE.

For the six offices combined, only 33 percent of the employees had

completed an IDP.

Recognizing that few of its employees had completed an IDP, DOE training

officials established a goal in November 1998 of having 90 percent of DOE

employees with an approved IDP by December 31, 1999. DOE training

officials explained that the 90-percent goal is based on the belief that that

may be the best percentage achievable. Some DOE training managers

interviewed were not aware that the Department’s order on federal

employee training requires the completion of an IDP, with certain

exceptions, for 100 percent of the Department’s employees until we

informed them.

Annual Training Plans

Have Not Been Developed

Each DOE office should complete an annual training plan that is based in

part on the information contained in the IDPs, according to DOE’s training

order. This plan provides the basis for developing training budgets. It

should also contain certain information, such as the estimated number of

employees to be trained, the type of training necessary, and the resources

required to provide that training. We found that the annual training plans

either have not been completed or did not contain the information

necessary to justify a budget request.

Five of the six offices had not completed an annual training plan for fiscal

year 1998. For the one office that had—the Office of Environment, Safety,

and Health—the plan did not contain the information required by DOE’s

training order. For instance, the plan did not estimate the number of

employees to be trained, the type of training necessary, or the resources

required to provide that training. Instead, the plan identified the initiatives

planned for fiscal year 1998, such as the need to continually provide

Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

employees with efficient course registrations and accurate training

records. The DOE training official responsible for preparing the annual

training plan explained that the plan did not contain certain information

because it had been prepared using the previous year’s annual training

plan as a guide, and this plan lacked this information.16

Recognizing that annual training plans were not being completed or were

not being completed properly, DOE, as early as 1996, had attempted to

develop a template for the plan. DOE envisioned that the template would

include an outline and suggested language. Because this template was

subsequently cancelled, DOE training officials in December 1998

immediately disseminated a copy of a properly completed fiscal year 1999

annual training plan as the model to be followed.

DOE’s Spending for

Training Could Be

Reduced

We identified two opportunities for reducing the costs associated with DOE

and contractor employees’ training. First, some nonmandatory training

could be reduced or eliminated. According to a departmental estimate,

about 90 percent of the training offered by DOE offices and contractors is

not mandated by laws and/or regulations. In addition, DOE has not

developed criteria on what type of nonmandatory training is appropriate.

Some nonmandatory training is beneficial for career growth and

professional development, such as courses on effective writing and oral

presentation skills. However, the benefits of other nonmandatory training,

such as determining social styles in the workplace, seemed less clear.

Second, DOE’s headquarters offices, field offices, and contractors have

developed and delivered duplicative courses and nonstandardized training

across the Department. This problem has occurred because DOE’s

decentralized training structure allows generally applicable courses, such

as project management, hazardous worker training, and occupational

safety and health, to be developed by each office and contractor.

Training Not Mandated by

Laws And/or Regulations

Federal agencies offer various types of training to their employees,

including technical skills, executive development, supervisory skills, and

mandatory training. We found that DOE as well as four other federal

agencies estimated their fiscal year 1997 training expenditures by course

type and provided that data to the American Society for Training and

16DOE’s training order was issued in May 1995 and would also have been applicable to any annual

training plans prepared in fiscal year 1997.

Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

Development’s Benchmarking Forum.17 According to these estimates, only

10 percent of DOE’s fiscal year 1997 training funds were spent for federal

employee training mandated by laws and/or regulations.18 In comparison,

two other agencies spent more and two other agencies spent less of their

fiscal year 1997 funding on mandatory training. Specifically, the Federal

Aviation Administration spent about 42 percent and the Tennessee Valley

Authority spent about 17 percent on mandatory training, while the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention spent about 3 percent and the National

Institutes of Health spent about 3 percent.

In addition, some training considered by DOE contractors to be mandated

by laws and/or regulations may not in fact be legally required. For

instance, in a 1998 report of contractor training activities at DOE’s

Savannah River Plant, we found that the contractor’s internal audit office

questioned the legal references for 30 percent of the training courses listed

as mandatory.19 In that report, we pointed out that the contractor could

not provide us with justification for each course it had considered

mandated by regulation.

We also found that DOE has not developed criteria on what type of

nonmandatory training is appropriate. A DOE training official agreed,

saying that there is a lot of “gray area” between what training is

appropriate and not appropriate within the Department.20 Some

nonmandatory training is beneficial for career growth and professional

development, such as courses on effective writing and oral presentation

skills. However, the benefits of other nonmandatory training seemed less

clear. For example, one location offered a course to employees facing

mid-life questions, another offered a course on determining social styles in

the workplace, and a third offered a course on defensive driving.

According to DOE training officials, while the Department estimated that

only 10 percent of its training funds are spent on mandatory training, this

estimate had not been confirmed by a detailed analysis. Furthermore, this

estimate was only an informed estimate and did not include the training

17The Benchmarking Forum gathered this information to profile the type of training various

organizations provide to their employees.

18The American Society for Training and Development’s Benchmarking Forum defined mandatory

training as instruction that is provided to meet environmental safety and health requirements, equal

employment opportunity and affirmative action requirements, right-to-know, and

government-mandated training.

19Department of Energy: DOE Contractor Employee Training (GAO/RCED-98-155R, May 8, 1998).

20This DOE training official added that the Department’s proposed revision to its order on federal

employee training will stipulate, however, that training must be mission-related and related to an

employee’s duties to be funded.

Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

required, for example, by DOE orders. These officials also stated that the

type of nonmandatory training offered is generally left up to DOE’s

individual offices. Accordingly, DOE has no immediate plans to develop a

more accurate estimate or conduct a comprehensive review of

nonmandatory training offered across the Department.

Independent Development

and Delivery of Training

In 1998, we reviewed the training courses that were independently

developed and delivered by DOE contractors at four field locations.21 The

review showed that the cost per employee for these courses varied

considerably among the contractors reviewed. For example, one course on

environmental laws and regulations varied in cost from $72 per employee

at one location to $624 per employee at another location. A second course

on hands-on fire extinguisher use varied in cost from $2.50 per employee

at one location to $102 per employee at another location (see table 2.2).

Table 2.2: Examples of Cost Per

Employee for DOE Contractor Training

Courses, Fiscal Year 1997 Course

Contractor at

Course Oak Ridge Richland Rocky Flats

Savannah

River

Back Injury Prevention $28.50 $108 $84 $50

Environmental Laws and

Regulations $624 $152 $192 $72

Hands-on Fire Extinguisher

Use $2.50 $102 Not offered $48

Hoisting and Rigging $592 $328 $72 $240

Occurrence Reporting $84 $62 $44 $36

Source: DOE.

Various factors account for the cost differences shown in the table,

including the length of the course and the labor rate used for the instructor

who provided the training. For instance, the course on environmental laws

and regulations varied in length from 4 to 24 hours, and the course on

hands-on fire extinguisher use varied in length from 15 minutes to 3 hours.

Consequently, employees attending these courses received a dissimilar

level of training, depending on the location. For some courses, for

instance, Rocky Flats used an outside vendor to provide its training at a

very favorable labor rate.

21Department of Energy: DOE Contractor Employee Training (GAO/RCED-98-155R, May 8, 1998).

Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

In response to the problems associated with the independent development

and delivery of training, DOE has been working since 1995 to standardize

training courses that are generally applicable across the Department. DOE

foresaw a number of benefits to be derived from standardization, including

an overall reduction in training costs and staff, the establishment of a

consistent knowledge base among employees, and the elimination of

redundant training.

In 1997, however, DOE abandoned its proposal to standardize training. At

that time, DOE officials indicated that such a standardization effort was too

comprehensive in scope in view of the more than 21,000 training courses

in the DOE training community.22 DOE officials said the Department will

continue efforts to standardize training by developing a listing of all DOE

courses, called the Universal Catalog, and establishing centers of

excellence on selected topics. As of December 1998, neither effort has

been successful in standardizing training. The Universal Catalog was only

35-percent complete and more than 1 year behind schedule for

completion. In addition, only two centers of excellence had been

established, although DOE had planned to designate four centers of

excellence by the end of the year. According to a DOE training official,

competing DOE priorities precluded the Department from fully funding and

making greater progress on both efforts.

Conclusions DOE can improve budgeting and reduce spending on training. In the

budgetary area, DOE has not successfully completed any of the critical

steps needed to develop sound and defensible training budgets. Because

DOE has not completed these steps, its training budgets are not directly tied

to the training needs of the Department. DOE also has not taken a number

of actions to reduce its training expenditures. It has not developed criteria

on what type of nonmandatory training is appropriate within the

Department, which has led to a wide range of nonmandatory training

courses being offered. DOE’s decentralized training structure has also led to

the independent development and delivery of training courses by DOE’s

headquarters offices, field offices, and contractors.

In regard to budgeting, DOE has not conducted a comprehensive

assessment of occupational training needs throughout the Department to

better understand its training needs. Certain occupational groups would

benefit from such an assessment, most notably those involved in program

22DOE added that with the Department facing many challenges, including the downsizing of training

personnel and decreases in the training budget, it is limited in accomplishing what was intended.

Page 23 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

management, property management, and contractor oversight tasks. In

addition, DOE has not completed an IDP for all employees required to have

one by DOE order. DOE training officials have established a goal of

completing IDPs for 90 percent of DOE employees by December 31, 1999.

However, without some other impetus, such as holding managers

accountable for ensuring that their staff complete IDPs, it is difficult to see

how establishing a goal will have any more success than the requirements

already contained in a DOE order. Finally, DOE offices have either not

completed annual training plans or not completed them properly.

According to DOE, the annual training plan provides the basis for any

request for budget funds.

Opportunities also exist for DOE to reduce its training costs. Specifically,

DOE has not developed criteria on what type of nonmandatory training is

appropriate nor reviewed the thousands of nonmandatory training courses

offered using such criteria. In addition, DOE has not standardized the

development and delivery of training courses that have general application

across the Department. This has produced unnecessary and duplicative

training courses throughout DOE.

Recommendations To improve the process for setting the training budget, we recommend

that the Secretary of Energy require

• the expeditious completion of a comprehensive occupational training

needs assessment throughout the Department. Where the assessment

process cannot be expedited, priorities should be set for the order in

which occupational groups will be assessed;

• the completion of IDPs for all departmental employees required to have one

by DOE order; and

• the completion of annual training plans as required by DOE order.

To reduce spending on DOE training, we recommend that the Secretary of

Energy require

• the establishment of criteria for what type of nonmandatory training is

appropriate and a review and elimination of nonmandatory training

courses given across DOE that do not meet those criteria; and

• the standardization of the development and delivery of training that has

general application across DOE.

Page 24 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 2 

DOE’s Management of Training Could Be

Improved

Agency Comments DOE agreed with our recommendations, except for the one that the

Department expeditiously complete a comprehensive assessment of

occupational training needs. In this regard, DOE indicated that it had

already completed such an assessment for certain occupational groups

and initiated a new program to rebuild a talented and well-trained corps of

research and development program managers. Furthermore, DOE stated it

will continue conducting these assessments as funding constraints and

departmental priorities allow. While we are encouraged by the actions that

DOE has already taken, we are concerned that funding constraints and/or

other departmental priorities may, in some way, hinder the completion of

a comprehensive occupational needs assessment. As we pointed out in

this report, the lack of skilled staff is one of the most fundamental

problems in the Department. Accordingly, we continue to believe that DOE

should expeditiously complete a comprehensive assessment of

occupational training needs.

In addition, the Department disagreed with our use of the concept of

nonmandatory training and with our discussion of whether excessive

nonmandatory training takes place in the Department. DOE indicated that

internal DOE directives as well as professional and international standards

also impose significant training requirements upon the Department. DOE

commented that, while this training is not normally defined as

“mandatory” by externally imposed laws or regulations, it is required and

does promote efficient as well as safe work practices. Nonetheless, DOE

concurred in the benefits of reviewing training courses periodically and

stated it is in the process of revising internal guidelines to better assess

training, including the nonmandatory training that is given.

Page 25 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training Plan Could Be

Improved

DOE’s November 1998 draft training plan represents the Department’s most

recent attempt to improve its training. The plan lays out a strategy for

training DOE employees over 3 fiscal years (1999 through 2001). However,

it has several shortcomings. Specifically, the plan does not

• realistically estimate the overall costs to implement the plan and the

overall savings to be achieved from it;

• explain how DOE’s decentralized training resources will be committed to

finance the plan;

• present a DOE policy regarding the use of the Department’s centers of

excellence; and

• identify the steps necessary to improve contractor training performance.

DOE training officials told us they were aware of these shortcomings and

intend to address each of them before a final training plan is issued.

DOE’s Plans to

Improve

Departmental Training

Have Evolved

In May 1995, the Department reviewed its training program and found a

number of problems. The problems cited by the review included

duplication and waste associated with the development and delivery of

both federal and contractor training and a lack of consistency in the

training provided across the Department. The review concluded, among

other things, that if a DOE-wide training program were developed, tens of

millions of dollars in annual training costs could be avoided.

In response to the 1995 DOE review, the Department issued a strategic plan

in July 1995 to improve federal employee training. DOE indicated that it

intended to eventually develop a similar document to improve training for

its contractors. Since its issuance, the strategic plan has had some success.

For instance, DOE has established a new training structure that includes,

for example, the Training and Development Management Council, which is

responsible for overseeing the efforts to improve DOE’s training program.

In addition, DOE has established two training centers of excellence.

On the other hand, DOE has not achieved many of the goals established by

the strategic plan. For instance, DOE had intended to reduce by 50 percent

the number of duplicate training courses offered by it and its contractors.

According to DOE officials, the Department must first enter all training

courses into a central database before it can analyze courses and reduce

redundancy.23

23According to a DOE training official, the schedule for entering all training courses into the central

database has not yet been determined.

Page 26 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training Plan Could Be

Improved

In July 1997, DOE decided to terminate its strategic training plan,

recognizing that it had not been entirely successful, and replace it with a

new training plan. DOE began drafting this new training plan in

November 1997 and intends to make the plan final early in calendar year

1999. With the new training plan, DOE believes that further reductions in

training expenditures are possible. In that regard, the plan contains 18

performance expectations to be accomplished. Those expectations

include, for instance, (1) having DOE’s average training expenditures per

employee be in alignment with similar federal agencies and the private

sector by December 31, 1999; (2) not having DOE fund the development of

duplicate training courses as of December 31, 1999; and (3) establishing

six training centers of excellence by December 31, 2000.

Overall Costs and

Overall Savings From

the Plan Have Not

Been Realistically

Estimated

According to DOE’s new training plan, it is important that DOE estimate the

overall dollar savings to be realized from the plan. Such an estimate, DOE

training officials believe, is necessary to obtain the support needed from

senior DOE management and the funding needed from the Congress. We

found, however, that the plan provides a limited projection of the overall

costs to implement the plan and no overall estimate of the cost savings to

be realized from it. Instead, the plan only provides certain indications of

the cost savings that are possible. However, these estimated cost savings

are overstated. For that reason, it in unclear whether the plan’s savings

will exceed its costs.

In the draft plan, DOE estimates that about $2 million will be needed over

fiscal years 1999 through 2001 to implement the performance actions

contained in the plan. DOE also acknowledges that this overall estimate is

understated. It states that cost estimates have not yet been made final for

certain key portions of the plan, including the implementation of a

DOE-wide training information system and a technology-supported learning

program. In a March 1998 submission to the Congress, DOE estimated that

the costs for these two portions for fiscal years 1999 through 2001 would

be $3.8 million and $3.4 million, respectively. However, no fiscal year 1999

funding was appropriated for these two portions.

Conversely, DOE provides no overall estimate of cost savings for the 3-year

period covered by the plan. Instead, DOE intends to wait and see what cost

savings the plan will generate. In the plan, nevertheless, DOE points out

that about $3 million in savings were realized during fiscal year 1998 from

several initiatives supported by the plan. Our review determined that these

savings are overstated. For example, the $3 million savings is based, in

Page 27 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training Plan Could Be

Improved

part, on reported cost savings of about $1.7 million by DOE’s National

Environmental Training Office in Aiken, South Carolina, for developing

training courses that were then used at other DOE locations. We found,

however, that the $1.7 million in savings was not offset against the

approximately $1.9 million in costs to operate the Training Office in 1998.

DOE training officials told us they will reevaluate and validate the cost data

before the plan is made final. The director of the Training Office added

that it must be recognized that the Training Office is only in its start-up

phase and an immediate return on investment cannot be expected.

DOE Has Not

Determined How the

Department’s

Decentralized

Training Resources

Will Be Committed to

Finance the Plan

DOE’s headquarters offices, field offices, and contractors all have their own

training programs and training budgets. For DOE’s training plan to be

successful, according to DOE, support and funding will be needed from

offices throughout the Department. We found, however, that the plan does

not explain how or according to what formula these DOE offices will be

asked to commit funds to finance the plan. Moreover, we found that few

DOE offices have actively participated in the development of the

performance expectations contained in that plan. Thus, when the plan is

completed, it is unknown whether support and funding will be available

throughout the Department for the plan.

According to DOE, each office within the Department is responsible for

implementing the plan and will be held accountable for carrying out the

expectations in it. In addition, each office will commit resources to ensure

that the performance expectations in the plan are met. The plan does not

specify, however, how, or according to what formula, these offices will be

asked to commit resources to finance the plan. Instead, the plan indicates

that DOE’s Training and Development Management Council will determine

sometime in the future how the plan will be funded.24

While each office is responsible for the plan’s implementation, few offices

have actively participated in the development of the performance

expectations contained in it. According to the minutes of training plan

meetings, representatives from only six of DOE’s principal offices have

volunteered to take the lead in developing any of these performance

expectations. DOE training officials also told us they did not foresee

participation from any more offices.

24The Training and Development Management Council is responsible for overseeing the efforts to

improve DOE’s training program.

Page 28 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training Plan Could Be

Improved

Once the training plan is completed, the training and development

management council intends to forward the plan to the Secretary of

Energy for endorsement. According to DOE training officials, the

Secretary’s endorsement may help offices throughout the Department that

did not participate in the plan’s development to accept its contents.

However, how the plan will be funded is not discussed in the plan.

A Policy Regarding

the Use of the

Department’s Centers

of Excellence Has Not

Been Developed

A central feature of DOE’s training plan is the creation of centers of

excellence. The mission of these centers is to provide high-quality training

on a topical area that cuts across the entire Department. By operating the

centers of excellence, DOE intends to eliminate the duplication of training.

We found, however, that the training plan does not present a policy on the

centers’ use or mandate that the centers will be the sole source for training

on a topical area. Without that mandate, there is no assurance that

duplication of training will be eliminated by the centers.

Furthermore, DOE’s draft training plan provides little information on the

centers-of-excellence concept. According to the training plan, two centers

of excellence were successfully launched in December 1997. On the basis

of that success, the plan indicates that further actions are planned. These

include (1) forming a panel of experts to review applications to become a

center of excellence, (2) recommending topical areas for

center-of-excellence designation, and (3) developing general operating

principles and means to evaluate the operating centers of excellence. The

training plan indicates that four additional centers of excellence will be

established by the end of fiscal year 2000.

However, the training plan does not articulate a policy on, or mandate the

use of, the centers within the Department.25 Absent that mandate, we

found that one of the centers has separately delivered training courses on

subjects that already existed within the Department. For example, during

fiscal year 1998, the National Environmental Training Office delivered a

3-day course on Environmental Laws and Regulations. We determined that

a similar course of comparable duration already existed elsewhere within

DOE. For example, contractors at both DOE’s Oak Ridge Operations Office

and Rocky Flats Field Office offer a 3-day course on Environmental Laws

and Regulations. In commenting on this matter, the director of the training

office said that DOE and DOE/contractor training organizations have

historically worked independently. Therefore, it will take some time for

25In a January 30, 1998, memorandum, DOE’s Office of Environmental Management advised its

employees seeking training related to environmental management to look first to the courses provided

by the National Environmental Training Office.

Page 29 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training Plan Could Be

Improved

these very same organizations to work more closely together. The director

added that the training office, nevertheless, has had tremendous success

during its first year in forming partnerships with various DOE locations to

eliminate duplicate training. Furthermore, the training office’s newer

courses are not being duplicated and in fact are being requested

throughout DOE.

The Steps Necessary

to Improve Contractor

Employee Training

Performance Have

Not Been Identified

According to DOE data, the Department spent about $322.2 million on

training contractor employees during fiscal year 1997. Despite this large

investment in its contractors and the documented problems in contractor

training identified in DOE’s 1995 review of training, the Department’s draft

training plan does not identify the steps necessary to improve contractors’

training performance or reduce costs. Instead, according to DOE training

officials, the Department will be working with its contractors to improve

contractor training through a subsequent installment of the plan. However,

we found that DOE has not (1) established a departmental order on

developing contractor training programs and budgets; (2) incorporated a

standard set of performance measures into its performance-based

contracts regarding contractors’ training efficiency and effectiveness; and

(3) clarified the roles and responsibilities of DOE offices for the oversight

of contractor training departmentwide. DOE training officials told us they

were aware that these issues must be resolved and intend to address them

in a subsequent installment of the training plan. However, a date for the

subsequent installment to the training plan has not yet been established.

While DOE’s order on federal employee training contains in-depth

information on the administration of federal training, we found that its

order on contractors’ human resource management provides considerably

less detail on contractor employee training. This latter order only requires

that each contractor submit an employee substance abuse and employee

assistance program for approval by the appropriate DOE contracting

officer. It does not, however, discuss the need for or the contents of an

employee training program. The order also does not provide any guidance

on developing a contractor’s annual training budget. Because of these

omissions, DOE training officials told us the Department intends to issue a

new order pertaining to contractor employee training sometime in the

future. A DOE timetable for the issuance of that new order has not been

established.

We also found that DOE has not developed a standard set of performance

measures to promote cost reductions in contractor training

Page 30 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training Plan Could Be

Improved

departmentwide. In May 1998, we reported that, for four contractors we

reviewed, the applicable DOE field locations used various measures during

fiscal year 1997 to evaluate contractors’ training performance.26 For

example, at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, DOE included a

performance measure in the contract that required the contractor to

develop a plan to consolidate all training records into an integrated

database. In addition, at the Rocky Flats Field Office, DOE included a

performance measure in the contract that required the contractor to fulfill

95 percent of the special requests for training when more than 3-days’

notice had been given. Although such measures could improve record

keeping and course scheduling, they would not, for the most part, help

eliminate unnecessary costs for contractor training or improve training

effectiveness.

In on our review of contractor training, we identified three performance

measures that were not being used DOE-wide that could reduce contractor

training costs. Specifically, we noted that DOE has not instituted a standard

performance measure to take the following actions:

• Consolidate training operations where multiple DOE contractors or

multiple contractor training organizations are present. Such consolidation

can substantially reduce costs by eliminating redundant training

organizations and redundant training courses. For example, at one

contractor location contacted, the contractor consolidated training that

had previously been provided by four separate organizations and reported

a cost savings of about $3.3 million the following year.

• Subcontract (i.e., outsource) training courses to qualified vendors.

Outsourcing can reduce the cost for providing contractor training. For

example, the contractor at one location contacted outsourced about 65

percent of its training to a qualified vendor at an estimated savings of more

than $0.6 million over a 2-year period.

• Use training course materials from other DOE locations rather than develop

courses independently. One contractor, for example, advised us it has no

policy or procedures requiring it to consider using materials from other

DOE locations before deciding to develop a new training course. We noted

that this contractor, in fiscal year 1997, spent over $3.9 million

independently developing contractor training courses at its site.

26Department of Energy: DOE Contractor Employee Training, (GAO/RCED-98-155R, May 8, 1998). The

four contractors were selected because their annual expenditures for training have been among the

highest across the DOE complex and, collectively, they accounted for 48 percent of DOE’s contractor

training expenditures in fiscal year 1997.

Page 31 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training Plan Could Be

Improved

Only one of the four contractors we reviewed had performance measures

aimed at reducing training costs.27

We further found that the roles and responsibilities for overseeing

contractor training performance departmentwide have not been

adequately addressed. According to DOE training officials we contacted,

four DOE headquarters offices have some interface with contractors

departmentwide—the Office of Human Resources Management, the Office

of Contract and Resource Management, the Office of Worker and

Community Transition, and the Office of Field Management. None of these

offices, however, has responsibility for overseeing contractor training

performance. According to an official with the Office of Human Resources

Management, this office collects contractor training cost data but has

limited contact with contractor training personnel. According to an official

with the Office of Contract and Resource Management, this office only

reviews contractor employees’ compensation, pensions, and benefits.

According to an official with the Office of Worker and Community

Transition, this office is primarily concerned with contractors’ employee

displacement and downsizing programs. According to an official with the

Office of Field Management, this office may deliver training on a particular

subject to both federal and contractor employees in the field. None of

these DOE offices indicated, however, that they review the contractor

training courses offered or the contractor training budgets.

DOE training officials agreed that the steps outlined above could improve

contractor training. These officials also told us that the training plan will

be revised to be applicable to DOE’s contractor workforce. In addition,

specific performance objectives and measures will be included in the plan.

Furthermore, the DOE order on contractor employee training will be

revised to include a chapter that will assign responsibility and provide

guidance for developing, monitoring, and evaluating training for

departmental contractors.

Conclusions DOE’s new training plan represents the Department’s vision of the

improvements needed in federal employee training for fiscal years 1999

through 2001. However, as currently drafted, the plan contains

shortcomings. First, it does not provide a realistic estimate of the overall

costs and overall savings associated with its new training plan. According

27The contract for DOE/Richland Operations Office contained performance measures to (1) develop a

plan to eliminate redundant training functions, (2) evaluate the possibility of consolidating all training

under one organization, and (3) eliminate redundant training courses.

Page 32 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training Plan Could Be

Improved

to DOE training officials, such an estimate is necessary to obtain the

support needed from senior DOE management and the funding needed from

the Congress. Second, the plan does not explain how DOE’s decentralized

training resources will be committed to accomplish the plan. At present,

few DOE offices have actively participated in developing the performance

expectations contained in the plan. Whether DOE offices that have not been

actively involved in the plan will financially support it, when completed,

remains to be seen. Third, the plan does not present a policy regarding the

use of the Department’s centers of excellence. The centers are a central

feature of the training plan. By operating the centers, DOE intends to

eliminate the duplication of training within the Department. However, the

plan does not present a policy on the use of the centers or mandate that

the centers be the sole source for training within the Department on a

topical area. Finally, even though DOE spent about 85 percent of its training

budget for fiscal year 1997 on training contractor employees, DOE’s training

plan does not address what steps should be taken to improve contractor

employee training. Because of these shortcomings, the plan will not

provide DOE with a reliable roadmap for the future, as intended. DOE

officials told us they plan to correct these shortcomings, but it is not clear

exactly how they will do this.

Recommendations To improve DOE’s new training plan, we recommend that the Secretary of

Energy require that the plan include

• a realistic estimate of the overall costs to implement the plan and the

overall savings to be achieved;

• an explanation of how DOE’s decentralized training resources will be

committed to finance the plan;

• a policy regarding the use of the Department’s centers of excellence; and

• an identification of the steps necessary to improve contractor training

performance. At a minimum, those steps should include (1) establishing

departmental guidance on the development, monitoring, and evaluation of

contractor training programs and budgets, (2) incorporating a standard set

of performance measures regarding training into its performance-based

contracts, and (3) clarifying the roles and responsibilities for the oversight

of contractor training performance departmentwide.

Agency Comments DOE concurred with the overall direction and intent of these

recommendations. Among other things, DOE said that , as part of the plan,

it will provide estimates of costs and savings in implementing the training

Page 33 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Chapter 3 

DOE’s New Training Plan Could Be

Improved

plan. In addition, DOE said it will develop a policy on the use of the centers

of excellence. Finally, DOE will add a new chapter to an existing DOE order

to clarify DOE’s oversight roles and responsibilities for contractor training

and provide performance-based contractor training objectives and

measures to be incorporated into major contracts as they are renewed and

offered for competitive bidding.

Page 34 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Page 35 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 36 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 37 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 38 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of Energy

Page 39 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development Division

Washington, D.C.

(Ms.) Gary L. Jones, Associate Director

William F. Fenzel, Assistant Director

Robert J. Baney, Evaluator-in-Charge

William M. Seay, Team Member

(141214) Page 40 GAO/RCED-99-56 DOE’s Training Program
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