Revised 3/13/15 to correct the Highlights and page 16. The corrected sentence on 

the Highlights reads: At DOE, a Sandia National Laboratories official estimated that 

Sandia attendance at a key conference declined by about half from 2011 through 

2013. The corrected sentence on page 16 reads: An official from Sandia National 

Laboratories estimated its attendance at the Materials Research Society’s annual fall 

conference declined from 45 participants in 2011 to 23 participants in 2013.

DEFENSE SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY

Further DOD and 

DOE Actions Needed 

to Provide Timely 

Conference Decisions 

and Analyze Risks 

from Changes in 

Participation

Report to Congressional Committees

March 2015

GAO-15-278

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-278, a report to 

congressional committees

March 2015

DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

Further DOD and DOE Actions Needed to Provide 

Timely Conference Decisions and Analyze Risks from 

Changes in Participation

Why GAO Did This Study

To help fulfill DOD’s and DOE’s S&T 

missions, including mitigating emerging 

threats, the departments’ scientists 

attend conferences. In May 2012, OMB 

directed agencies, among other things,

to establish senior-level review 

processes for all hosted or attended 

conferences exceeding specific cost 

thresholds. DOD and DOE 

implemented conference policies in 

2012, with subsequent updates, to 

comply with OMB’s requirements.

GAO was mandated to review the 

effects of OMB’s requirements on 

DOD’s and DOE’s S&T missions. 

Among other things, this report (1) 

examines S&T conference participation

changes since policy implementation, 

and examines the extent to which DOD 

and DOE (2) face and have mitigated 

implementation challenges, and (3) 

have identified risks from conference 

participation changes and analyzed 

them for any potential effects. GAO 

reviewed conference policies, and 

interviewed and surveyed conference 

management and S&T officials from 

principal research labs. Survey results 

were not generalizable.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOD and DOE 

(1) establish time frames for providing 

conference request decisions and (2) 

develop a plan to analyze and 

periodically reevaluate risks from 

conference participation changes. 

DOD partially concurred with the first 

recommendation, stating it will collect 

and analyze data to implement further 

solutions. GAO still believes the 

recommendation is valid, as discussed 

in the report. DOD concurred with the 

second recommendation and DOE 

concurred with both recommendations. 

What GAO Found

Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) officials cited 

reduced attendance at science and technology (S&T) conferences by scientists 

and engineers since DOD and DOE implemented their conference policies. 

These policies, responding to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

requirements, established processes for senior-level review and approval of 

conference requests based on department-wide cost thresholds. Following policy 

implementation, DOD’s Army Research Laboratory officials stated that 

conference attendance by personnel decreased from about 1,300 attendees in 

2011 to about 100 attendees in 2013. At DOE, a Sandia National Laboratories 

official estimated that Sandia attendance at a key conference declined by about 

half from 2011 through 2013. DOD and DOE officials noted other factors that 

may have affected conference attendance, such as OMB’s mandatory reduction 

in travel, and sequestration. 

The length of DOD’s and DOE’s conference review and approval processes, 

which has increased since implementing their policies, poses a challenge to 

timely decision making about conference requests that DOD and DOE have yet 

to fully mitigate. Information provided by DOD and DOE officials indicates the 

length of their conference review and approval processes has increased from a 

period of weeks to as much as 9 months after implementing their policies, in part, 

due to the multiple levels of review required. As a result, DOD and DOE officials 

stated that approval decisions are often not made until close to the start of a 

conference, which creates a disincentive for the departments’ scientists and 

engineers to take on active roles, such as presenting research or serving as a 

keynote speaker, and may lead to increased registration or travel costs. DOD 

and DOE have taken steps to streamline aspects of their review and approval

processes, but these efforts have not always provided conference request 

decisions in a time frame that meets applicants’ needs. In particular, DOD and 

DOE have not established time frames for providing decisions based on 

applicants’ needs. Federal internal control standards state that as agencies strive 

to improve their processes, management must assure that information is 

communicated in a time frame that helps those who need it to carry out their 

responsibilities. Until DOD and DOE establish these time frames, scientists and 

engineers will continue to face uncertainty over whether they can commit to more 

active roles at a conference or take advantage of discounted registration fees.

DOD and DOE officials have identified and communicated risks associated with

changes in conference participation, but have not analyzed these risks for any 

potential effects on their departments’ S&T missions. Identified risks include a 

potential decline in the quality of scientific research, difficulty in recruiting and 

retaining qualified scientists and engineers, and a diminished leadership role for 

DOD and DOE within the global S&T community. However, GAO found that DOD 

and DOE officials have not developed a plan to analyze the risks for any potential 

effects to achieving the departments’ S&T missions or to periodically reevaluate 

these risks consistent with federal internal control standards. Without developing 

a plan to analyze and periodically reevaluate these risks, it will be difficult for 

DOD and DOE to manage any potential effects from these risks on their ability to 

achieve their S&T missions. 

View GAO-15-278. For more information, 

contact Johana Ayers at (202) 512-5741 or 

ayersj@gao.gov, or John Neumann at (202) 

512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology 

Letter 1 

Background 6

DOD and DOE Implemented Conference Policies Addressing 

OMB Requirements, and Officials Identified Some Associated 

Costs 11

DOD, DOE, and Professional Societies Cited Examples of 

Changes in Participation since Implementing Conference 

Policies 15

Despite Streamlining Efforts, Length of Review and Approval 

Processes Has Posed a Challenge for DOD and DOE since 

Conference Policy Implementation 20

DOD and DOE Have Identified and Communicated Risks from 

Changes in Conference Participation but Have Not Analyzed 

These Risks for Any Potential Effects on Their S&T Missions 28

Conclusions 33

Recommendations for Executive Action 34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 40

Appendix II Overview of Department of Defense and Military 

Department Conference Review and Approval Authorities 45

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Defense 49

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Energy 51

Appendix V GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Tables

Table 1: Examples of Department of Defense (DOD) and 

Department of Energy (DOE) Entities’ Steps to Streamline 

Conference Review and Approval Processes 25

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology 

Table 2: Tiered Review and Approval Structure Outlined in the 

Department of Defense’s (DOD) Conference Policy, by 

Military Department 47

Figures

Figure 1: Selected Department of Defense and Department of 

Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration 

Laboratories 8

Figure 2: Average Numbers of Days for Review and Approval of 

Conference Requests by Department of Defense (DOD) 

Components before and after Policy Implementation 22

Figure 3: Timeline of Office of Management and Budget, 

Department of Defense, and Military Department 

Guidance 46

Abbreviations

DARPA Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DCMO Deputy Chief Management Officer

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

labs laboratories

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration

NSTC National Science and Technology Council

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

S&T science and technology

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

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

March 4, 2015

Congressional Committees

The United States depends on science, technology, and engineering to 

help protect the American people, advance national interests, and 

prepare to meet the challenges of an uncertain future. The defense 

science and technology (S&T) enterprise includes more than 129,000 

scientists, engineers, and personnel across organizations under the 

Department of Defense (DOD) and its component services and agencies, 

and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) National Nuclear Security 

Administration (NNSA).1

DOD and DOE scientists and engineers attend S&T conferences each 

year as part of their efforts to expand their knowledge and help them fulfill 

their missions.

The missions of the defense S&T enterprise 

include mitigating existing or emerging threats, developing new 

technologies to deter U.S. adversaries, managing and securing the 

nation’s nuclear weapons, and preventing the spread of nuclear weapons 

and related technology.

2

 

1

Congress created NNSA as a semi-autonomous agency within DOE under title 32 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-65, § 3211 

(1999).

In addition, DOD and DOE, like other executive branch 

agencies, sponsor conferences as well as allow personnel to attend 

conferences sponsored by other organizations to help personnel be more 

effective in their jobs. For those in the defense S&T enterprise, 

conference participation can promote communication with peers in other 

U.S. agencies and academia, as well as those from other countries. In 

addition, this communication helps to provide leadership across an array 

of individual technical fields, ensure the technical quality of research, and 

recruit new scientists and engineers to work in the defense laboratories 

(labs), among other purposes. Members of Congress as well as White 

House, DOD, and DOE officials have noted the importance of conference 

participation for the defense S&T enterprise. For example, a February 

2014 memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 

2

A “conference” is defined in the Federal Travel Regulation as a “meeting, retreat, 

seminar, symposium, or event that involves attendee travel.” The term “conference” also 

applies to training activities that are considered to be conferences under federal regulation 

(41 C.F.R. § 300-3.1).
 

Page 2 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Technology and Logistics stated that S&T conferences are potentially 

beneficial for scientists and engineers to remain technically competent 

and develop professionally in their field.3

Over the past several years, multiple Inspectors General have reported 

on excessive costs for conferences sponsored by certain executive 

branch agencies.4 In November 2011, the President signed an executive 

order that cited the need for federal agencies to ensure efficient spending 

on conferences and other activities.5 To this end, the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memorandum in May 2012 

directing executive branch agencies to establish a review and approval 

process for all future conferences where net expenses by the agency 

would exceed $100,000 and to annually report on agency-sponsored 

conferences with net expenses to the agency exceeding $100,000, 

among other things.6 To implement the requirements of OMB’s May 2012 

memorandum, DOD and DOE issued and later updated policies to review 

conference participation.7

 

3

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, Participation in 

Technical and Industry Conferences, Memorandum (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 24, 2014).

However, since DOD and DOE implemented 

these policies, some members of Congress and White House, DOD, and 

DOE officials have expressed concerns about the policies’ potential 

effects on the defense S&T enterprise’s ability to successfully complete 

its missions. For example, an August 2013 memo from the Director of the 

White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) stated that 

reductions in the ability of federal scientists and engineers to attend S&T 

conferences would, if continued, encourage the best scientists and 

4

For example, U.S. General Services Administration, Office of Inspector General, Office of 

Investigations, Management Deficiency Report: General Services Administration Public 

Buildings Service, 2010 Western Regions Conference (Apr. 2, 2012); and U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, Audit of Department 

of Justice Conference Planning and Food and Beverage Costs, Audit Report 11-43 

(October 2011). 

5

White House, Executive Order 13589, Promoting Efficient Spending, 76 Fed. Reg. 

70,861 (Nov. 9, 2011).

6

Office of Management and Budget, Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency 

Operations, Memorandum M-12-12 (May 11, 2012). 

7

See Department of Defense, Deputy Chief Management Officer, Implementation of 

Updated Conference Oversight Requirements, Memorandum (Nov. 6, 2013); and 

Department of Energy, Improving Efficiency of the Conference Approval Process, 

Memorandum for the Secretary (Dec. 31, 2013).
 

Page 3 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

engineers to leave federal service, ultimately degrading the overall quality 

of the workforce and its research, and diminishing the capabilities of the 

federal labs.8

The Senate report accompanying a bill for the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2014 mandated that we review the 

effects of conference policy implementation on the defense S&T 

enterprise, to include DOD and DOE’s NNSA.9

To address these objectives, the scope of our work included the S&T 

enterprises of DOD and DOE’s NNSA. Specifically, within DOD, we 

selected and reviewed the principal research labs operated by each 

military department, including the Army Research Laboratory, Naval 

Research Laboratory, and the Air Force Research Laboratory. At DOE, 

we selected and focused on NNSA and its three national labs, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and 

Sandia National Laboratories. The information we obtained from these 

selected labs is not generalizable to all DOD and DOE S&T components, 

but provides illustrative context from the experiences of this subset of 

organizations that are a part of the defense S&T enterprise. We also 

reviewed DOD and DOE entities responsible for overseeing conference 

management at the department level.

In this report, we (1) 

assess whether the DOD and DOE conference policies address OMB 

requirements, and identify any costs associated with implementing these 

policies; (2) examine any changes in S&T conference participation since 

DOD and DOE implemented their conference policies; (3) examine the 

extent to which DOD and DOE have faced and mitigated any challenges 

resulting from conference policy implementation; and (4) examine the 

extent to which DOD and DOE have identified the risks from changes in 

conference participation and analyzed these risks for any potential 

effects.

To assess whether the DOD and DOE conference policies address 

OMB’s requirements, and to identify any costs associated with 

 

8

National Science and Technology Council, Implementation of Federal Travel and 

Conference Policies with Respect to Scientific and Technical Conferences, Memorandum 

for National Science and Technology Council Committees and Subcommittees (Aug. 5, 

2013). OSTP provides administrative support to the National Science and Technology 

Council. 

9

S. Rep. No. 113-44, at 68 (2013).
 

Page 4 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

implementing these policies, we reviewed documents, including 

conference policies and implementing guidance for DOD, for each of the 

military departments, DOE, and NNSA. For DOD, we reviewed 

information included in our January 2014 report, in which we assessed 

the extent to which DOD’s conference policy was consistent with OMB 

requirements, and determined whether there was any change in DOD’s 

policy since we last reported on it.10

To examine any changes in S&T conference participation since DOD and 

DOE implemented their conference policies, we requested conference 

attendance data from the six labs selected for our review for 1 year prior 

to implementation of the agencies’ conference policies in 2012 through 

the first quarter of fiscal year 2014, the most recent full quarter available 

at the time of our request. The agencies generally could not provide us 

with complete conference attendance data. However, we interviewed 

DOD and DOE officials, including conference managers and S&T 

program managers, to obtain their perspectives on changes in conference 

participation and reviewed the sources of those examples with the 

officials, although we did not independently verify the reliability of the data 

provided in these examples. We determined that this information was 

sufficient for the purposes of illustrating agency officials’ opinions about 

changes in conference participation. We also spoke with OSTP officials 

about the availability of conference attendance data. Further, we 

interviewed representatives from five professional societies that both 

sponsor conferences and had the largest numbers of conference 

publications by DOD and DOE scientists and engineers from 2004 

For DOE, we assessed DOE’s 

conference policy against the elements specified in OMB’s May 2012 

memorandum. Further, we interviewed DOD and DOE officials across 

multiple departmental and S&T organizations about DOD’s and DOE’s 

policies. To identify the costs associated with implementing the 

conference policies, we requested information on any relevant 

implementation costs. The agencies generally could not provide complete 

cost data, as discussed in this report. However, we obtained examples of 

implementation costs during interviews with DOD, DOE, and OSTP 

officials. We reviewed the sources of these examples with the officials 

and found the information sufficiently reliable for purposes of discussing 

possible implementation costs.

 

10GAO, Defense Management: DOD’s Conference Policy Is Generally Consistent with 

OMB’s Requirements, GAO-14-150 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 21, 2014).
 

Page 5 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

through 2013 to corroborate DOD and DOE officials’ statements on 

changes in conference participation. The information we obtained from 

the representatives of these five professional societies is not 

generalizable to all professional societies, but provides illustrative context 

from the experiences of this subset of societies.

To address our objectives regarding the extent to which DOD and DOE 

have faced and mitigated any challenges related to implementing their 

conference policies, and identified any risks from changes in conference 

participation and analyzed their potential effects, we conducted 34 

interviews that included 141 DOD and DOE officials across multiple 

departmental and S&T organizations about these issues, and conducted 

a content analysis of these interviews. Based on this analysis, we 

enumerated challenges and mitigation strategies as well as benefits 

identified as being at risk due to changes in overall conference 

participation mentioned during these interviews. We then shared these 

lists with 44 conference manager and S&T program manager officials 

whom we selected based on their roles and responsibilities. We asked 

these officials to add any additional challenges and risks that may exist to 

ensure our lists were comprehensive. Following this, we then sent a 

survey to this same subset of officials, asking respondents to rate the 

effect of each potential mitigation strategy and prioritize steps for 

implementing the strategies. We received responses from 31 of the 44 

officials who received the survey. The information we obtained from this 

survey is not generalizable to all DOD and DOE conference management

and S&T program manager officials, but provides insights from this 

subset of officials who have roles and responsibilities related to their 

agency’s conference requests. Further, we reviewed relevant 

documentation on DOD and DOE efforts to mitigate conference policy 

implementation challenges, including studies and proposed guidance. We 

also interviewed DOD, DOE, and OSTP officials and representatives from 

five professional societies that both sponsor conferences and had the 

largest numbers of conference publications by DOD and DOE scientists 

and engineers from 2004 through 2013 to obtain additional information on 

the benefits that may be at risk from changes in conference participation. 

Finally, we compared DOD’s and DOE’s efforts to mitigate any identified

challenges and to analyze any potential effects from changes in 

conference participation against practices described in the Standards for
 

Page 6 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Internal Control in the Federal Government.

11

We conducted this performance audit from February 2014 to March 2015 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We provide additional 

information about our scope and methodology in appendix I.

As part of its mission to protect U.S. interests, DOD’s strategic guidance 

includes a commitment to apply all elements of U.S. national power to 

address security challenges.12 One such element is DOD’s S&T-related 

research efforts, which include basic research, applied research, and 

advanced technology development.13

 

11GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

DOD’s S&T research is conducted 

under the auspices of the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research and Engineering. This office provides technical leadership and 

oversight of the various DOD components that have S&T research 

investments—known as the DOD S&T enterprise. This enterprise 

comprises numerous research labs and defense agencies, including the 

three principal research labs operated by the military departments: the 

Army Research Laboratory, Naval Research Laboratory, and Air Force 

Research Laboratory. S&T research efforts at DOD are diverse, ranging 

from computing sciences to sensor development for air and space 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).

12DOD, Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2012).

13Basic research is systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or understanding 

of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific 

applications toward processes or products in mind. Applied research is systematic study 

to gain knowledge or understanding necessary to determine the means by which a 

recognized and specific need may be met. Advanced technology development includes all 

efforts that have moved into the development and integration of hardware for field 

experiments and tests.

Background

DOD’s and DOE’s Science

and Technology Missions
 

Page 7 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

reconnaissance to medical research for protecting the health of military 

personnel. In its entirety, the DOD S&T enterprise employs approximately 

100,000 scientists and engineers and, according to DOD budget data, 

received appropriations of about $12 billion in fiscal year 2014.

DOE also has a mission to promote U.S. security by using S&T efforts to 

address energy, environmental, and nuclear challenges. To help execute 

this mission, DOE’s NNSA is responsible for maintaining and enhancing 

the safety, reliability, and performance of the nation’s nuclear weapons, 

among other responsibilities.14 NNSA is responsible for overseeing a 

network of sites and national labs to implement DOE’s nuclear security 

mission. NNSA’s national labs include Lawrence Livermore National 

Laboratory, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National 

Laboratories.15

 

14See 50 U.S.C. § 2401(b).

S&T research efforts at these labs range from nuclear 

weapon sustainment to laser technologies. The three NNSA labs employ 

approximately 29,400 people, including scientists and engineers, and, 

according to DOE budget data, received an appropriation of about $4.8 

billion in fiscal year 2014. Figure 1 shows the location of the DOD and 

DOE’s NNSA labs included in our review.

15Sandia National Laboratories includes two labs, one in Livermore, California, and one in 

Albuquerque, New Mexico. 
 

Page 8 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Figure 1: Selected Department of Defense and Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration Laboratories

To help support their missions as part of the defense S&T enterprise, 

DOD and DOE’s NNSA sponsor or send personnel to a variety of 

conferences that bring together a broad range of scientists and engineers 

to present scientific results, discuss technologies, and expand 

collaboration in scientific research. Conferences can be organized and 

sponsored by federal agencies or by members of a broader S&T 
 

Page 9 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

community.16 According to the National Academy of Sciences, 

conferences provide a venue for researchers to collaborate with others in 

their technical fields by bringing together large concentrations of 

researchers, and allow for access to the newest research findings, which 

may not be published in scientific journals in a timely fashion.17

OMB’s May 2012 memorandum outlines a series of requirements to 

ensure that federal funds are used appropriately on all conference-related 

activities, including S&T conferences, and that executive branch agencies 

reduce spending on conferences when practicable.18 According to OMB’s 

memorandum, agencies should ensure that conference attendance and 

costs are limited to the levels required to carry out their assigned mission. 

The memorandum’s requirements include a Deputy Secretary-level 

review and approval of conferences with a net expense to the agency of 

more than $100,000.19

 

16For the purposes of this report, “S&T community” includes academia, private industry, 

and professional societies that also conduct S&T research and organize and participate in 

S&T conferences. Conferences organized and sponsored by the S&T community may 

consist of multiple programs representing different technical fields that include lectures, 

poster sessions, and special sessions for speakers presenting their research.

The memorandum further prohibits costs in excess 

of $500,000 on a single conference without a signed waiver from the 

head of the respective agency, such as the Secretary of Defense or 

Energy. Finally, the memorandum requires each executive agency to 

report annually on the expenses for agency-sponsored conferences 

exceeding $100,000 and identifies specific reporting requirements for 

17National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Strategic Engagement in 

Global S&T: Opportunities for Defense Research (Washington, D.C.: 2014).

18See OMB Memorandum M-12-12. The memorandum characterizes conference activities 

that must be reviewed by agencies as conferences sponsored by the reviewing agency 

and conferences sponsored by other federal or nonfederal entities. For purposes of this 

report, we are referring to conferences sponsored by the reviewing agency as DOD- and 

DOE-sponsored and to conferences sponsored by other federal or nonfederal entities as 

non-DOD- and non-DOE-sponsored, respectively.

19Under OMB’s memorandum, conference expenses include all direct and indirect costs 

paid by agencies or reimbursed by agencies for a conference, except for funds paid under 

federal grants to grantees. The memorandum states that conference expenses should be 

net of any fees or revenue received by the agency through the conference, as well as 

certain other excluded costs. 

OMB Memorandum on 

Reviewing, Approving, and 

Reporting Conference 

Costs
 

Page 10 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

these conferences.20

Following its May 2012 memorandum, OMB also issued two controller 

alerts related to conference oversight, among other topics. The first 

controller alert, issued in May 2013, noted that conferences may play an 

important role in government operations to, for example, facilitate 

collaboration in the scientific community and provide an efficient means 

for presenting scientific findings.

In response, both DOD and DOE issued interim

guidance and memorandums in 2012 and 2013, and both departments 

issued updated policies late in 2013 that remain in effect.

21 At the same time, the alert noted that 

agencies should provide employees with guidelines on acceptable 

conference expenses and identified several best practices for agencies to 

consider. The second controller alert, issued in January 2015, stated that 

the Secretary- or Deputy Secretary-level reviews required by OMB’s May 

2012 memorandum could be delegated to a level deemed appropriate by 

these officials.22

Subsequent to OMB’s May 2012 memorandum, the Consolidated and 

Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, established a requirement 

for executive branch agencies to notify their respective Inspector General 

of any agency-sponsored conference costing more than $20,000 within 

15 days of the conference.

The alert noted that, by delegating the approval authority, 

agencies have found that the approver is more familiar with the subject of 

the conference. In addition, the alert suggested that, to prevent a lengthy 

and cumbersome review process that could hinder an agency’s ability to 

carry out its mission in an efficient and effective manner, agencies should 

pre-approve known reoccurring conferences and attendance at nongovernment-sponsored conferences.

23

 

20Specific reporting requirements include: the location, date, and total conference costs 

incurred by the agency for the conference; a brief explanation of how the conference 

advanced the mission of the agency; and the total number of individuals whose travel 

costs or other conference costs were paid by the agency.

The notice must include the date and 

location of the conference, and the number of employees attending. The 

21Office of Management and Budget, Controller Alert: Travel and Conferences (May 28, 

2013). 

22Office of Management and Budget, Controller Alert: Travel and Conferences (Jan. 

2015). 

23Pub. L. No. 113-6, § 3003(c), 127 Stat. 435 (2013). This requirement was also included 

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Pub. L. No. 113-76, § 742, 128 Stat. 242 

(2014).
 

Page 11 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

act also requires agencies to submit annual reports to the Inspector 

General or a senior ethics official regarding the costs and contracting 

procedures related to each conference that costs the government more 

than $100,000.

DOD and DOE have implemented conference policies that address the 

requirements established in OMB’s May 2012 memorandum to oversee 

conference spending. Officials also identified some costs associated with 

the implementation of these policies, such as costs related to staff time 

and information systems, but could not provide complete information on 

the implementation costs of these policies.

In January 2014, we reviewed DOD’s conference policy including how 

DOD implemented its policy and the extent to which the policy was 

consistent with OMB’s requirements.24

DOD has a tiered review and approval structure in place to oversee 

conference spending that addresses the requirements established in 

OMB’s May 2012 memorandum. Specifically, DOD’s policy established 

three tiers for reviewing and approving conference spending requests. 

The total cost of the conference and whether it is DOD-sponsored or nonDOD-sponsored determines the review and approval tier. For example, a 

non-DOD-sponsored conference with total registration costs for attendees 

from the Departments of the Army, Navy, or Air Force over $100,000 

must be reviewed and approved by the Secretary or Under Secretary of 

the particular military department. However, DOD-sponsored conferences 

costing between $100,000 and $500,000 can be reviewed and approved 

Based on discussions with DOD 

officials and our further review of DOD’s policy, we determined that 

DOD’s policy has not changed since we issued our January 2014 report, 

and that the DOD and military departments’ conference policies address 

OMB’s requirements.

 

24GAO-14-150. 

DOD and DOE 

Implemented 

Conference Policies 

Addressing OMB 

Requirements, and 

Officials Identified 

Some Associated 

Costs

DOD and Military 

Department Conference 

Policies Address OMB’s 

Requirements
 

Page 12 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

by lower level officials, such as Commanders of Army and Air Force 

commands. DOD’s tiered review and approval structure varies from 

OMB’s 2012 memorandum by delegating the authority to (1) grant 

waivers for conferences costing greater than $500,000 to the Secretary or 

Under Secretary of each military department, rather than retaining the 

authority at the Secretary of Defense level, and (2) approve spending on 

conferences costing greater than $100,000 to lower levels than specified 

by OMB’s requirements. According to DOD’s policy, these variances were 

made with OMB’s concurrence and stem from the department’s unique 

size and complexity.25

Despite these variances, DOD’s tiered review and approval structure 

includes provisions that exceed OMB’s requirements in other respects. 

For example, DOD’s policy calls for senior levels of review and approval 

of conferences costing less than $100,000, while OMB’s May 2012 

memorandum does not have such requirements. In addition, DOD’s 

policy requires additional reporting on conference costs. Specifically, 

DOD requires quarterly internal reporting on conferences costing $20,000 

or more, while OMB requires annual reporting on conferences costing 

more than $100,000. The details of DOD’s tiered review and approval 

structure are described in greater detail in appendix II.

Within DOD, the Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer (DCMO) 

is responsible for implementing DOD’s conference policy, including 

issuing guidance and meeting reporting requirements. The DCMO also 

manages the DOD Conference Tool, a department-wide information 

system designed to track and report data on conference expenditures 

required by OMB, federal law, and DOD’s policy.

In addition to the DOD-wide policy, each military department has issued 

and updated policies for overseeing conference spending that are 

consistent with DOD’s policy. The military departments’ policies generally 

require that applicants’ conference attendance requests explain how 

attendance will further the department’s mission and identify the cost, 

among other things. However, these conference policies vary because 

they establish different levels of delegated approval authority. For 

example, the Air Force delegated review and approval authority for Air 

Force-sponsored conferences under $100,000 and non-DOD-sponsored 

 

25As stated, OMB’s controller alert issued in January 2015 indicated that such delegations 

are permissible. 
 

Page 13 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

conferences under $20,000 from the Secretary of the Air Force and 

Under Secretary of the Air Force to the Commanders and Vice 

Commanders of Air Force major commands and components, such as 

the Air Force Materiel Command, which oversees the Air Force Research 

Laboratory. In contrast, the Secretary of the Navy retained review and 

approval authority for Navy-sponsored conferences with costs exceeding 

$500,000 and non-DOD-sponsored conferences with costs exceeding 

$100,000. Approval authority for Navy-sponsored conferences with costs 

up to $500,000 and non-DOD-sponsored conferences with costs up to 

$100,000 was delegated by the Secretary of the Navy to the Department 

of the Navy Assistant for Administration.26

DOE’s conference policy, which covers NNSA, addresses the 

requirements in OMB’s May 2012 memorandum. Under DOE’s policy, the 

Secretary of Energy must grant a waiver for conferences costing 

$500,000 or more. The Deputy Secretary of Energy delegated review and 

approval authority for conferences with net costs between $100,000 and 

$500,000 to the Under Secretary level, which includes the Administrator 

of NNSA.27 According to a DOE memorandum providing guidance on 

implementing the policy, delegating this authority would streamline the 

review and approval process without compromising its integrity.28

According to DOE officials, NNSA follows DOE’s conference policy and 

has not developed its own implementing policy or guidance. According to 

officials at the NNSA labs, the labs submit approval requests through the 

DOE Conference Management Tool, and each lab has its own process 

for tracking data on conference expenditures. Unlike DOD, DOE and 

DOE’s 

Office of Management implements the conference policy, including 

issuing guidance and meeting reporting requirements, and manages 

DOE’s Conference Management Tool, a department-wide information 

system designed to track and report conference expenditure data 

required by OMB and federal law.

 

26The Department of the Navy Assistant for Administration provides administrative 

management and support to the Office of the Secretary of the Navy, its 6,000 member 

Secretariat, as well as staff offices and other organizations.

27The May 2012 OMB memorandum identifies the Deputy Secretary as the approval 

authority for conferences in this cost range.

28Department of Energy, Improving Efficiency of the Conference Approval Process,

Memorandum for the Secretary (Dec. 31, 2013). 

DOE’s Conference Policy 

Addresses OMB 

Requirements, and NNSA

Follows DOE’s Policy
 

Page 14 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

NNSA policies do not specify how to review and approve conference 

requests costing less than $100,000 and, according to officials, each lab 

has its own process for reviewing and approving conference costs less 

than $100,000. DOE officials emphasized that OMB’s thresholds for 

senior-level review and approval of conference requests are based on 

costs department-wide and, therefore, would encompass scientists and 

engineers across all of DOE, not just at the three NNSA labs.

While DOD and DOE do not maintain complete data on the costs of 

implementing their conference policies, officials from both departments 

identified some examples of such costs. Neither the DOD and DOE 

policies nor the OMB memorandum require the departments to gather 

and maintain data on costs to implement the conference policies. Since 

DOD and DOE could not provide complete data on costs before and after 

implementing their conference policies, we could not determine the extent 

to which the departments have incurred costs associated with 

implementing their policies.

DOD and DOE officials were able to identify examples of staff resource 

costs associated with implementing their conference policies. Specifically, 

Naval Research Laboratory officials told us that an internal survey 

covering October 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014, determined that more than 

9,000 hours were spent on all conference oversight-related tasks, such as 

preparing and reviewing conference requests, and that the estimated cost 

of this time was about $824,000. Officials also noted that this cost 

estimate did not include the hours that higher-level review and approval 

authorities spent reviewing the Naval Research Laboratory’s conference 

request packages. Similarly, DOE officials described examples of staff 

resource costs associated with implementing their conference policy. Los 

Alamos National Laboratory reported, in response to an April 2014 

request for data by the National Science and Technology Council 

(NSTC), that annual spending for staff costs related to conference 

oversight increased from $0.2 million a year prior to the OMB May 2012 

memorandum to $1.6 million in fiscal year 2013.29

 

29In April 2014, NSTC requested that federal departments and agencies provide data 

related to conference policy implementation, such as the amount of time for conference 

approval and costs associated with implementing the policies. Agencies provided some 

examples of the staff time or other costs associated with reviewing conference 

participation requests under their policies, but were not able to provide comprehensive 

data on how staff with different levels of experience were affected.

DOD and DOE Officials 

Identified Some Costs 

Associated with 

Implementing Their 

Conference Policies
 

Page 15 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

DOD and DOE officials also identified costs incurred to develop or 

procure information technology systems to collect and manage the data 

required as part of the DOD or DOE conference policies. Both DOD and 

DOE developed department-wide conference management systems to 

track conference expenditures, and some of the military departments and 

NNSA labs developed or modified their own systems. For example, Army 

officials estimated that the cost of deploying the Army Conference 

Reporting and Tracking Tool was about $658,000.30

DOD and DOE officials provided examples of changes in conference 

participation during the period since implementing the departments’ 

policies to address OMB requirements. However, a lack of complete data 

and other factors, such as mandated budget reductions, do not allow us 

to determine whether any changes in conference participation can be 

directly attributed to changes in their conference policies. Specifically, 

officials from both departments cited reduced attendance and differing 

expectations for scientists’ and engineers’ roles at S&T conferences. 

DOD and DOE do not have data that would allow us to reliably compare 

attendance before and after implementing conference policies to address 

OMB’s requirements as they are not required to maintain such data, but 

department officials provided examples of fewer scientists and engineers 

attending conferences, as well as other changes in how they participate 

at conferences. Professional society representatives also provided us 

with examples of reduced attendance at the S&T conferences they host. 

DOD and DOE officials also noted that other factors, such as 

sequestration, may have contributed to reduced attendance in recent 

years.

The officials 

described the tool as an online application designed to increase efficiency 

and decrease errors in the conference requesting and reporting process. 

They stated that, if used properly and to its fullest extent, the tool would 

reduce processing time for requesting and reporting data. Similarly, Los 

Alamos National Laboratory officials told us that the lab spent $708,500 to 

update an existing travel and expense management system to add 

functionality and a reporting capability in response to OMB requirements 

for reporting conference costs.

 

30The Army officials stated it is challenging to estimate a specific cost because the work 

conducted to deploy the Army Conference Reporting and Tracking Tool is part of an 

existing information technology contract that was also used for other information 

technology services. The information from this tool is used to compile information needed 

for entry into DOD’s Conference Tool.

DOD, DOE, and 

Professional 

Societies Cited 

Examples of Changes 

in Participation since 

Implementing 

Conference Policies
 

Page 16 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

DOD and DOE officials, in 27 of 34 interviews we conducted with them, 

cited reduced conference attendance since implementing the 

departments’ conference policies. The officials provided several examples 

of decreased conference attendance in recent years, such as the 

following:

• Army Research Laboratory officials stated that conference attendance 

by its personnel decreased from approximately 1,300 attendees in 

2011 to approximately 100 attendees in 2013.

• A Los Alamos National Laboratory official described a highperformance computing conference to which the lab historically sent 

about 100 researchers but received approval for 40 to attend in 2014.

• An official from Sandia National Laboratories estimated its attendance 

at the Materials Research Society’s annual fall conference declined 

from 45 participants in 2011 to 23 participants in 2013. 

Additionally, DOD and DOE officials in 12 of the 34 interviews we 

conducted—which included conference managers as well as scientists 

and engineers—stated that rejection of conference applications 

contributed to reduced attendance at S&T conferences. DOD and DOE 

conference management officials explained that under the departments’ 

policies, conference requests are generally not denied in their entirety, 

but that the number of approved attendees for a particular conference 

may be less than what was requested. For example a conference 

management official at Los Alamos National Laboratory told us that 27 

scientists from that lab requested to attend a 2014 American Nuclear 

Society conference but only 16 of the 27 were approved.

Prior to OMB’s May 2012 memorandum, DOD and DOE collected some 

data on conference attendance but were not required to track, and thus 

did not collect, complete conference attendance data. While DOD and 

DOE have implemented information systems to track and report 

conference expenditures as part of their efforts to address OMB’s 

requirements, the departments are not required to collect data on, for 

example, the number of individuals seeking approval and the number 

approved to attend conferences at all levels of cost, and do not use these 

information systems to do so. Moreover, these information systems do 

not include data related to other aspects of conference participation, such 

as whether the participants are speakers, as DOD and DOE are not 

required to collect such information. In addition, both the DOD and DOE 

Inspectors General recently issued reports that raised concerns about the 

DOD and DOE Officials 

Cited Reduced Attendance 

by and Different Role 

Expectations for Scientists 

and Engineers as 

Changes in Conference 

Participation
 

Page 17 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

reliability of the conference participation data in the agencies’ information 

systems, among other conference management issues.31

Representatives of professional societies responsible for sponsoring S&T 

conferences echoed DOD and DOE officials’ examples of reduced 

conference attendance by DOD or DOE scientists since the departments 

implemented their policies. For instance:

Since the 

departments could not provide data on changes in their scientists’ and 

engineers’ conference attendance before and after OMB’s May 2012 

memorandum, we were unable to analyze any potential effects of the 

departments’ policies on S&T conference attendance.

• Representatives of the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management 

stated that, for the society’s 2012 annual conference, federal 

attendance—historically about one-third of total attendees—dropped 

by 50 percent compared to the prior year.

• Representatives from the International Society for Optics and 

Photonics stated that 648 DOD and DOE scientists attended the 

society’s Defense Security and Scanning conference in 2012, but that 

this number dropped to 206 in 2013.

• A representative from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers told us that, in 2014, the institute’s annual conference on 

lasers was held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, within 50 miles of several 

DOD and DOE labs or research centers that conduct laser-related 

research. However, only one DOE scientist attended that year’s 

conference.

• Representatives of the American Chemical Society said that the Army 

did not send any representatives to its Green Chemistry and 

Engineering conference in 2014. They noted that the Army 

participated in this conference in the past and this event would have 

entailed minimal travel expense for Army researchers as the 

conference was held in close proximity to the Army Research 

 

31See Department of Defense Inspector General, The Office of the Deputy Chief 

Management Officer Needs to Improve Oversight of the DoD Conference Report, DODIG2015-069 (Alexandria, Va: Jan. 21, 2015); and Department of Energy Office of Inspector 

General, Inspection Report: Management of Department of Energy-Sponsored 

Conferences Costing More Than $20,000, INS-L-15-02 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 

2015).
 

Page 18 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Laboratory. Army conference management officials confirmed that it 

did not receive any requests to attend the conference, but did not 

know whether requests were not submitted because the nature of the 

review process deterred participation or if other factors contributed.

While many DOD and DOE officials we spoke with noted reduced 

conference attendance since the initial 2012 implementation of the 

departments’ conference policies, some officials told us that conference 

attendance in 2014 increased in comparison to the prior 2 years although 

they could not provide data to that effect. They attributed the 2014 

increase, in part, to a better understanding of the departments’ 

conference policies. In addition, DOD officials attributed the lifting of some 

federal travel restrictions in 2014 as another reason for the change in 

conference attendance. Professional society representatives also 

observed such increases. Specifically, according to data provided by 

representatives from the International Society for Optics and Photonics, 

DOD and DOE attendance at the society’s Defense Security and 

Scanning conference rose to 378 in 2014 from 206 in 2013.

In addition to citing examples of reduced participation at conferences, 

DOD and DOE officials cited differences in the expectations of roles for 

scientists and engineers at conferences. For example, DOD and DOE 

officials told us that prior to implementing their conference policies, there 

was not an expectation for scientists and engineers to serve in an “active 

role” at a conference, such as keynote speaker, panel chair, or presenter. 

However, since implementing the policies, many DOD and DOE officials 

noted that scientists and engineers are sometimes called upon to serve in 

an active role to obtain approval to attend. According to a director of one

research area at Los Alamos National Laboratory, some scientists and 

engineers may not have a paper or research to present, but need to 

attend a conference to learn about a new area they might be working in, 

or the latest issues in their current field. The expectation to have an active 

role can hinder the ability of scientists and engineers to attend 

conferences for the purpose of learning about new areas or the latest 

issues. In addition, officials noted that scientists and engineers are more 

likely to be called upon to present the results of others’ research. For 

example, DOE officials stated that for one conference in 2013, Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory sent 50 individuals who presented 70 

papers on lab research projects.
 

Page 19 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

In addition to DOD’s and DOE’s conference policies, officials identified 

other factors, such as OMB-required travel reductions and sequestration, 

as contributing to changes in participation for scientists and engineers at 

S&T conferences. In addition to review, approval, and reporting 

requirements, OMB’s May 2012 memorandum also directed each agency 

to spend at least 30 percent less on travel expenses in fiscal year 2013 

than in fiscal year 2010, and maintain this reduced level of spending each 

year through fiscal year 2016. DOD and DOE officials noted that, to the 

extent conferences entailed travel costs, the OMB requirement to 

constrain these costs may have affected attendance. For example, Air 

Force Research Laboratory officials stated that overall travel 

expenditures, which include conference expenses, decreased from $35 

million in fiscal year 2010 to $7 million through the first 6 months of fiscal 

year 2014, although the officials could not estimate how much of the total 

travel expenditures were related to conferences. DOD and DOE officials 

also stated that additional overall budget reductions were required when 

the President ordered sequestration of discretionary and direct spending 

on March 1, 2013.32 For example, Army Fiscal Planning Guidance issued 

in January 2013 directed staff to curtail attendance at or sponsoring of 

non-mission-critical conferences.33 However, while DOD and DOE 

officials cited these factors as contributing to reduced attendance at S&T 

conferences, they could not provide data that would allow us to analyze 

the effect of each of these factors on conference participation.

 

32We previously reported on federal agencies’ implementation of sequestration in GAO, 

2013 Sequestration: Agencies Reduced Some Services and Investments While Taking 

Certain Actions to Mitigate Effects, GAO-14-244 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2014). 

33U.S. Army, Fiscal Planning Guidance for Budgetary Uncertainty (Jan. 16, 2013).

Other Factors May Have 

Contributed to Changes in 

Conference Participation
 

Page 20 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

DOD and DOE officials cited the length of their departments’ review and 

approval processes as having posed a challenge to timely decision 

making regarding conference requests since the implementation of their 

policies. Both departments have taken steps to mitigate this challenge by 

streamlining their review and approval processes. However, these steps 

have not ensured that applicants receive timely decisions on whether they 

are approved to attend a conference. In particular, the departments have 

not established time frames for providing conference review and approval 

decisions based on applicants’ needs.

DOD and DOE officials, in 29 of the 34 interviews we conducted, cited the 

increased length of their conference review and approval processes as a 

challenge since implementing the departments’ conference policies 

because scientists and engineers do not always receive timely decisions 

about whether their conference attendance is approved. Prior to OMB’s 

May 2012 memorandum, S&T program managers within the labs were 

responsible for reviewing and approving conference requests, according 

to DOD and DOE officials. For example, at NNSA, a resource analyst 

determined whether the lab had funds, then a line manager assessed the 

business case for participation, and lastly an associate director for 

management at the lab approved or rejected conference requests. One 

Los Alamos National Laboratory official said this process typically took a 

period of weeks to complete. Similarly, Air Force and Army documents 

estimate the average time to respond to conference requests was less 

than a week prior to the 2012 conference policy implementation.

Since implementing the departments’ conference policies, DOD and DOE 

officials said conference requests take longer to be reviewed and 

approved due, in part, to the multiple levels of review required. For 

example, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research and Engineering stated that one Army command’s review and 

approval process—the U.S. Army Research, Development and 

Engineering Command—can take at least 3 to 4 months and involves 17 

steps, as well as additional substeps, that end with a three- or four-star 

Despite Streamlining 

Efforts, Length of 

Review and Approval 

Processes Has 

Posed a Challenge 

for DOD and DOE 

since Conference 

Policy Implementation

Length of DOD’s and 

DOE’s Review and 

Approval Processes 

Poses a Challenge to 

Timely Decision Making 

about Conference 

Requests
 

Page 21 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

general approving or rejecting conference requests.34 The command 

conducted an analysis that showed the process of submitting and 

reviewing a conference request within the command took an estimated 

total of 132 hours, including 37 hours spent by the individual requesting to 

attend the conference for activities such as collecting information to draft 

documents and memos, before the request was forwarded to the next 

step in the review and approval process.35

 

34We also reviewed documentation that outlined the steps in the Army command’s review 

and approval process.

In response to NSTC’s April 

2014 data request, DOD components also provided data illustrating the 

time frames for completing their review and approval processes both 

before and after implementing the department’s conference policy. Figure 

2 shows the average number of days DOD components reported to 

NSTC for reviewing and approving conference requests before and after 

conference policy implementation.

35The official noted that the Army’s Research, Development and Engineering Command 

conducted this analysis in March 2014 and that, with process changes since that time, the 

average time for reviewing and approving requests is now somewhat less. However, the 

command has not updated its analysis.
 

Page 22 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Figure 2: Average Numbers of Days for Review and Approval of Conference Requests by Department of Defense (DOD) 

Components before and after Policy Implementation

Note: In some instances, these data also include the time taken to prepare conference requests. 

Where necessary, we used an average of 30 days per month to convert data provided in months to 

days. Also, some DOD components provided a range of days for their review and approval 

processes. Whenever a range was given in the original data, the higher end of the range is depicted 

in the figure. Further, some responses indicated review and approval time frames prior to conference 

policy implementation were “less than 1 week.” In these cases we used 7 days in the figure to 

represent the highest possible value for the response time.

a

The Navy did not collect data on time frames for reviewing and approving conference requests prior 

to implementing the conference policy in response to OMB’s May 2012 memorandum.
 

Page 23 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

In interviews with us, DOE officials also cited the increased length of their 

review and approval process since implementing the department’s 

conference policy. For example, according to Lawrence Livermore 

National Laboratory officials, the conference review and approval process 

may take up to 9 months as the requests are reviewed at both the lab 

level and higher levels of DOE, depending on the cost of the conference. 

Once a conference request moves from the lab to DOE headquarters, 

DOE officials said the final review process averages 49 days.

As a result of the increased length of their review and approval 

processes, DOD and DOE scientists and engineers do not always receive 

timely decisions about whether their conference attendance is approved. 

Specifically, DOD and DOE officials stated that scientists and engineers 

often do not always receive approval decisions until close to the start of a 

conference. For example, Sandia National Laboratories officials provided 

an analysis of 10 key conferences held in 2013 which found that 51 

approvals were received less than 20 days before the start of a 

conference.36

DOD and DOE officials and professional society representatives identified 

two potential effects if scientists and engineers do not know whether their 

conference attendance will be approved until close to the start of a 

conference. This includes a disincentive for scientists and engineers to 

take on an active role and increased costs for conferences. Specifically:

• According to estimates provided by professional society 

representatives, conference organizers may begin planning the 

agenda 3 to 6 months in advance of the event by requesting that 

researchers, including those from DOD and DOE, submit papers to 

present and by inviting keynote speakers. Scientists and engineers 

are less likely to submit papers or accept speaking invitations if they 

do not have assurance that a decision regarding attendance will be 

made in a timely fashion, DOD and DOE officials told us, because 

they may be concerned about their standing with peers in their 

technical communities if they have to cancel shortly before the 

conference begins because they did not get approval to attend in 

time. These officials along with professional society representatives 

 

36In its response to the NSTC data request, Sandia National Laboratories provided data 

illustrating late approvals to attend conferences. Further quantitative data are not available 

because the lab’s response focused on a qualitative analysis of 10 major conferences.
 

Page 24 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

also told us that scientists and engineers could be excluded from 

future conferences as a result of cancelling their participation in a 

conference at which they had already agreed to speak or present.

• Several DOD and DOE officials cited the potential for increased costs 

if a decision regarding attendance is not approved until close to the 

beginning of a conference, as scientists and engineers may no longer 

be able to take advantage of reduced lodging, transportation, or 

registration costs. For example, one Los Alamos National Laboratory 

official said that for a recent American Chemical Society meeting, 

airfares increased $400 while the conference request was being 

reviewed, resulting in one individual’s airfare increasing to $1,400 for 

a domestic roundtrip for the conference due to a last-minute approval.

DOD and DOE officials have taken steps to streamline their review and 

approval processes to mitigate the challenge posed by their length. DOD, 

the military departments, DOE, and NNSA have, among other actions, 

mapped their processes to better understand where opportunities for 

streamlining exist. Table 1 highlights examples of the steps taken by 

DOD, the military departments, DOE, and NNSA to streamline their 

conference review and approval processes.

DOD and DOE Have 

Taken Some Steps to 

Streamline Their Existing 

Processes, but Have Not 

Established Time Frames 

for Providing Decisions 

Based on Applicants’ 

Needs
 

Page 25 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Table 1: Examples of Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) Entities’ Steps to Streamline Conference 

Review and Approval Processes

Entity Streamlining steps taken

DOD DOD clarified in its policy that no-cost conferences do not require approval. 

Army The Army’s Research, Development and Engineering Command initially required two legal reviews of its conference 

requests, the first at the subordinate-level organization and another at the command’s general counsel. Subsequently, 

an official from the command said the command revised its requirements to eliminate one of these reviews in response 

to an analysis done to identify bottlenecks in the review and approval process. According to Army documentation, 

under most circumstances removing this step can reduce the length of the review and approval process by about 20 

days.a

Navy According to officials from the Department of Navy Assistant for Administration, the Assistant for Administration is 

briefed about conference requests on a daily basis, which has enabled a 2- to 3-day turnaround once the conference 

request arrives at the assistant’s office. In addition, Office of Naval Research and Naval Research Laboratory 

personnel submit all conference attendance requests directly to the Department of Navy Assistant for Administration 

for approval. The Department of Navy Assistant for Administration routinely approves attendance at local conferences 

with minimal or low cost to the government as well as requests made by the Office of Naval Research Global.b

Air Force The Air Force delegated approval authority for non-DOD-sponsored conferences with Air Force-wide costs of $20,000 

or less to the Commander of the Air Force Research Laboratory, among others, which shortened the review and 

approval process for these conferences.

DOE DOE worked to address the length of the review and approval process by developing a list of reoccurring annual nonDOE sponsored conferences that are subject to a streamlined review and approval process. Under this process, a full 

conference request package is not required for participation up to 125 percent of the cost of the previous year’s level. 

DOE officials told us this effort has decreased the length of time for reviewing requests for these conferences.

NNSA The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) obtained a DOE exemption from the conference review and 

approval process for all international training and regularly occurring working meetings related to one of its initiatives. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD, DOE, and NNSA information. | GAO-15-278

a

The Army’s Research, Development and Engineering Command conducted an analysis of the review 

process for requests from the Army Research Lab and made some changes as a result, such as 

removing an additional legal review; however, the final analysis was not completed due to the Army 

developing an electronic conference package review system that is expected to address the 

challenges identified.

b

The Office of Naval Research Global promotes collaboration with international scientists through 

programs such as exchange visits and conferences.

DOD and DOE have taken other steps intended to provide applicants 

more timely decisions about their conference requests. These efforts, 

however, have not provided reasonable assurance that applicants always 

receive decisions in a timely manner that meets their needs. In particular, 

DOD and DOE conference managers, as they became more familiar with 

their respective review and approval processes, have provided guidance 

that calls for the submission of requests by specific deadlines. For 

example, the Air Force Research Laboratory provided lab personnel with 

a document that specifies when conference applicants should submit their 

requests to allow sufficient time for the review and approval process and 

increase the applicants’ chances of receiving an approval before a 

conference is held. Similarly, DOE has set deadlines to apply to attend 
 

Page 26 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

specific conferences working backwards from the registration deadlines to 

allow time for the review and approval process before the end of 

discounted registration. While these deadlines may be helpful in letting 

applicants know when they need to submit their requests, the deadlines 

have two shortcomings:

• These deadlines are focused on when applicants should submit their 

conference requests, rather than providing time frames for when 

applicants should expect to receive decisions about their request.

• Applicants may have different needs for the timing of decisions about 

their conference requests based on whether they would like to take on 

an active role at a conference or take advantage of lower-cost travel 

arrangements. Since these deadlines are based on either the 

beginning of a conference or the early registration date, they do not 

help ensure timely decision making about conference requests that 

would allow applicants to more confidently commit to active 

conference roles.

Based on our analysis, DOD’s and DOE’s conference policies do not 

establish specific time frames for when conference request decisions are 

to be provided, and their current guidance for submitting conference 

requests does not ensure that decisions are provided based on 

applicants’ needs.

DOD and DOE have ongoing streamlining efforts to reduce the length of 

their conference review and approval processes, but these efforts do not 

specifically include establishing time frames for providing conference 

request decisions based on applicants’ needs, according to DOD and 

DOE officials. For example, DOE officials told us they are conducting 

outreach sessions with lab directors to identify additional streamlining 

opportunities and have established a Conference Management Best 

Practices group. A DOE management official noted that, as part of these 

outreach sessions, the lack of decision time frames for those needing 

early approvals (e.g., because they hoped to have an active conference 

role) was identified as a process weakness. The official also noted that a 

process that allows for different approval time frames was informally 

discussed to address this weakness. However, DOE officials did not 

agree on plans for what adjustments would be made to DOE’s policy or 

what best practices would be implemented to ensure timely conference 

decisions. Additionally, an Office of the DCMO official said the office 

intends to make changes to DOD’s conference policy in fiscal year 2015, 

but did not specify the scope of any planned review of DOD’s policy, 
 

Page 27 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

including whether the review would focus on the time frames for providing 

conference review and approval decisions based on applicants’ needs.37

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that as 

programs change and agencies strive to improve processes, 

management must continually assess and evaluate its internal controls to 

assure that control activities are effective and are updated when 

necessary.

Furthermore, while OMB’s January 2015 controller alert stated that it was 

providing clarification that agencies could delegate conference approval 

authority to a level deemed appropriate by the Secretary or Deputy 

Secretary, neither DOD or DOE indicated any plans for further delegation 

of authority. Specifically, an Office of the DCMO official said he did not 

foresee any changes to DOD’s conference policy as a result of the OMB 

controller alert clarification, and a DOE management official said DOE 

had no position on the clarification provided by OMB’s alert.

38

 

37According to OSTP officials, NSTC is in the process of analyzing information provided in 

response to its April 2014 request for data on conference policy implementation. An OSTP 

official said that NSTC will hold a forum for agencies to share best practices for 

implementing their conference policies, but that the exact timing of the forum is uncertain 

as of February 2015. 

Also, internal controls should provide reasonable assurance 

that the objectives of the agency are being achieved. Lastly, according to 

federal internal control standards, information should be recorded and 

communicated to management and others within the entity who need it 

and within a time frame that enables them to carry out their internal 

control and other responsibilities. OMB’s May 2013 controller alert noted 

that the conference review and approval requirements from its May 2012 

memorandum, in part, ensure that conference expenditures are costeffective and advance agencies’ missions and goals. While such 

assurance is important for the effective and efficient use of federal funds, 

as the length of DOD’s and DOE’s conference review and approval 

processes increased following the implementation of their conference 

policies, scientists and engineers have not always received timely 

decisions about their requests. The departments have taken steps to 

provide more timely decisions by streamlining their review and approval 

processes to shorten their length and by setting specific deadlines for 

applicants to submit conference requests. However, DOD and DOE 

continue to lack decision making time frames, and therefore, do not

always provide request decisions to applicants based on their needs for a 

38GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 
 

Page 28 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

specific conference. As a result, scientists and engineers do not always 

receive timely information based on their needs about whether their 

participation is approved, which is inconsistent with internal control 

standards. Without establishing time frames for providing conference 

review and approval decisions based on applicants’ needs, the ability of 

the departments to address uncertainty about whether applicants can 

serve in an active role, such as a keynote speaker, or take advantage of 

discounts on registration and travel costs remains inhibited.

DOD and DOE officials have identified risks from changes in conference 

participation to the defense S&T enterprise since the implementation of 

their conference policies, and have publicly communicated these risks to 

Congress. However, DOD and DOE have not analyzed these risks for 

any potential effects they may have on the defense S&T enterprise’s 

missions and do not have plans to conduct such an analysis.

DOD and DOE officials identified several risks from changes in 

conference participation to the mission of the defense S&T enterprise. 

According to our analysis of 34 interviews we conducted with DOD and 

DOE officials, the three risks most frequently cited were (1) a potential 

decline in quality of scientific research, (2) difficulty in recruitment and 

retention, and (3) a diminished leadership role for the defense S&T 

enterprise.

Potential decline in quality of scientific research. DOD and DOE 

officials in 26 of our 34 interviews said reduced conference attendance 

could result in a decline in the quality of scientific research over time. 

These officials explained that scientists and engineers in the defense S&T 

enterprise use a peer review process to promote research quality by 

seeking independent scrutiny of research results from other experts in 

their fields before publicizing the results. A key means of peer review—

and in some cases, the primary means, according to DOD and DOE 

officials—is presenting research at S&T conferences. For example, Air 

DOD and DOE Have 

Identified and 

Communicated Risks 

from Changes in 

Conference 

Participation but Have 

Not Analyzed These 

Risks for Any 

Potential Effects on 

Their S&T Missions

DOD and DOE Officials 

Identified and 

Communicated Risks from 

Changes in Conference 

Participation
 

Page 29 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Force officials stated that the publications of certain professional societies 

represent the archival foundation of knowledge for particular technical 

areas. Scientific papers accepted for these journals must be peer 

reviewed, and attendance at the societies’ conferences is an important 

step in that process to obtain feedback to help improve the research 

results. For instance, a research director at Sandia National Laboratories 

described a scientist who presented research on radiation effects at a 

conference and in turn obtained input from several different peers in 

related fields that resulted in amendments to his research. The director 

said the scientist’s ability to receive feedback from multiple sources at 

once would not have been possible in a non-conference setting. DOD and 

DOE officials we spoke with were concerned that, with reduced 

attendance, the quality of research within the defense S&T enterprise 

could suffer over time as a result of not sharing scientific information or 

engaging in peer review at conferences.

Difficulty in recruitment and retention. DOD and DOE officials in 21 of 

the 34 interviews we conducted said reduced conference attendance 

could present challenges in recruiting and retaining talented scientists 

and engineers. For example, Naval Research Laboratory officials said 

that from fiscal year 2009 to May 2014, the lab hired 103 permanent new 

scientists and engineers as a result of recruiting at conferences. With 

reduced attendance at S&T conferences, the officials were concerned 

about their ability to recruit new staff. Similarly, the officials stated that 

they were concerned that reduced conference attendance could make it 

more difficult to retain highly qualified staff. They noted that conference 

attendance constraints were cited in exit interviews at the Naval Research 

Laboratory as a contributing factor in nine staff resignations. Additionally, 

a report on the condition of the research environment at Sandia National 

Laboratories stated that restraints on conference attendance have 

negatively affected the research environment and could affect recruiting 

and retention of talented scientists and engineers in the future.39

 

39Department of Energy, Sandia National Laboratories, State of the Research 

Environment 2013 (Feb. 2014).

DOD 

and DOE officials said scientists and engineers establish their 

professional reputations by presenting research at conferences in order to 

have their work published in the journal associated with the professional 

society that sponsored the conference. Officials said that without such 

opportunities, researchers may not be attracted to employment or 
 

Page 30 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

continued employment at a federal lab as a means of accomplishing their 

professional objectives.

A diminished leadership role for the defense S&T enterprise. DOD 

and DOE officials in 9 of our 34 interviews said changes, such as reduced 

conference attendance, could diminish the overall leadership role of the 

defense S&T enterprise over time. According to the officials, the U.S. 

defense S&T enterprise historically has provided leadership by shaping 

the scientific research agenda in certain technical areas and maintaining 

relationships with partner countries’ scientists. For example, officials in 

the Office of the Air Force Chief Scientist said the service has traditionally 

had a strong relationship with scientists from another country in the area 

of aerospace hypersonic research. However, these officials expressed 

concern that this relationship could be diminished without international 

conference attendance, as these scientists could seek to establish 

relationships with scientists from other countries in lieu of U.S. 

partnerships. Further, according to a letter to OMB from the presidents of 

the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management and the American Nuclear 

Society, reduced conference attendance at their respective societies’ 

meetings—resulting from the implementation of OMB’s conference 

oversight requirements—will harm U.S. nuclear energy and 

nonproliferation efforts by stifling scientific and technical exchange.40

DOD and DOE officials have publicly communicated risks that they

identified to the defense S&T enterprise from changes in conference 

participation, including reduced attendance. DOD and DOE officials have 

used multiple forums to publicly communicate these risks. For example, in 

a January 2014 letter to the Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs committee, the DOE National Laboratory 

Directors’ Council expressed concerns of risks to the defense S&T 

enterprise, specifically citing difficulty in recruiting and retaining qualified 

scientists and engineers.

Without the ability to reliably attend these conferences, DOD and DOE 

officials were concerned that federal scientists and engineers could cede 

leadership in S&T matters to scientists from other countries.

41

 

40Michael Corradini and Ken B. Sorenson to the Honorable Sylvia Burwell, Director, Office 

of Management and Budget (Apr. 29, 2013). 

Further, DOD and DOE officials have 

41The National Laboratory Directors’ Council is an organization formed by the directors of 

each of the 17 DOE national labs, including the three NNSA labs.
 

Page 31 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

communicated their concerns in congressional hearings. For example, at 

a March 2014 congressional hearing, the Principal Deputy Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering testified about the 

state of DOD’s S&T program and expressed concerns about maintaining 

a healthy workforce that includes young scientists and engineers with 

reduced ability to attend S&T conferences.42

Professional society representatives expressed similar concerns about 

risks to the defense S&T enterprise. For example, representatives from 

three professional societies said U.S. scientists and engineers historically 

have demonstrated leadership in the worldwide scientific community by 

making keynote presentations at conferences, among other things. 

However, some representatives said they are seeing foreign countries 

increasing the numbers of their scientists and engineers attending 

conferences as U.S. government researchers’ attendance has decreased, 

and that foreign attendees have taken over key speaking positions when 

U.S. government researchers could not attend. Further, according to a 

representative from the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, 

DOD and DOE participation in the society’s 2014 annual meeting on 

lasers was so low that the society is considering moving future meetings 

in this technical area overseas, rather than continue the event in Santa 

Fe, New Mexico, where it has been held routinely given the expertise of 

local federal scientists. The representative noted that this reduced 

attendance will diminish U.S. S&T leadership because the society’s 

conferences are planned by “senior fellows.” In order to become a senior 

fellow, a scientist or engineer needs to establish a record of presenting at 

the society’s conferences. Without the ability to reliably attend 

conferences to present research, federal scientists and engineers will be 

less frequently selected for these senior fellow positions and, as a result, 

may not have the ability to shape conferences’ technical programs to 

meet U.S. needs.

 

42Alan R. Shaffer, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering, Department of Defense (DOD) Fiscal Year 2015 Science and Technology 

Programs: Pursuing Technology Superiority in a Changing Security Environment, 

testimony before the House Committee on Armed Services, Subcommittee on 

Intelligence, Emerging Threats and Capabilities, 113th Cong., 2nd sess. (Mar. 26, 2014). 
 

Page 32 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research and Engineering and the Office of the DCMO as well as DOE 

officials stated that their respective departments have not analyzed the 

risks associated with changes in conference participation for any potential 

effects on their scientific mission. Moreover, DOD and DOE have not 

documented in a plan their intent to conduct such an analysis or how 

these risks and their potential effects will be periodically reevaluated. 

Officials from both departments further explained that they do not have 

complete information, such as data on conference attendance or whether 

participants continue to serve as speakers, that could help them analyze 

these potential effects. DOD and DOE officials we interviewed expressed 

uncertainty as to what information might be needed to help them analyze 

the risks associated with changes in conference participation. For 

example, officials with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research and Engineering said it is difficult to demonstrate the effects of 

reduced conference attendance, in part because the effects may take a 

long period to manifest, and also because of other factors beyond the 

conference policy that may affect attendance. Still, the DOD officials said 

that it could be feasible to demonstrate workforce effects from conference 

policy implementation, such as reduced recruitment or higher attrition. 

While identifying the needed information may be difficult, some 

organizations have begun efforts to identify and collect information in 

initial efforts that they believe may help them to analyze the potential 

effects. For example, in response to NSTC’s data request, Sandia 

National Laboratories collected some quantitative and qualitative data to 

help examine the effects of changes in conference participation. Also, as 

noted above, the Naval Research Laboratory has collected some exit 

interview data on the extent to which conference attendance constraints 

contributed to staff resignations.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

agencies must assure that their control activities are effective and are 

updated when necessary as they strive to improve operational 

processes.43

 

43

One internal control is assessing risks the agency faces. 

Risk assessment is the identification and analysis of relevant risks 

associated with achieving an agency’s objectives and forming a basis for 

determining how risks should be managed. According to internal control 

standards, once risks have been identified, they should be analyzed for 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

DOD and DOE Have Not 

Analyzed the Risks from 

Changes in Conference 

Participation for Any 

Potential Effects on Their 

Missions
 

Page 33 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

their possible effects on achieving an agency’s objectives. A risk analysis 

includes estimating the risk’s significance, examining the likelihood of its 

occurrence, and deciding which actions should be taken to manage the 

risks. In addition, according to federal internal control standards, because 

conditions continually change, mechanisms such as periodic 

reevaluations should be provided to identify and address any risks 

prompted by such changes. These standards also state that any internal 

controls should be clearly documented, which can be done through the 

development of a plan. While DOD and DOE officials have identified and 

publicly communicated the risks from changes in conference participation 

to their missions, they have not analyzed these risks for any potential 

effects on their missions. Specifically, DOD and DOE have not developed 

plans to analyze the risks from changes in conference participation for 

any potential effects, including identifying and collecting additional 

information needed to help them analyze these risks, or to periodically 

reevaluate the risks and their potential effects. Without developing a plan 

to analyze and periodically reevaluate the risks from changes in 

conference participation for any potential effects, it will be difficult for DOD 

and DOE to effectively manage any potential effects from these risks on 

the ability of the defense S&T enterprise to achieve its missions.

Scientists and engineers at DOD and DOE’s NNSA labs rely on S&T 

conference participation to help meet their missions to support national 

interests in science and defense. DOD and DOE, through their DCMO 

and Office of Management, respectively, implemented conference 

policies that address OMB’s May 2012 memorandum requirements for a 

review and approval process as well as reporting on spending. While 

complete data before and after OMB’s May 2012 memorandum are not 

available, DOD and DOE officials and professional society 

representatives provided examples of changes in conference 

participation—particularly reduced attendance—since implementing the 

departments’ policies. In addition, the length of the review and approval 

processes under the DOD and DOE conference policies has increased, 

resulting in scientists and engineers not always receiving timely decisions 

about conference requests to determine whether they could take on 

active conference roles or take advantage of lower-cost travel 

arrangements. DOD and DOE have begun to mitigate this challenge by 

taking steps to streamline their conference review and approval 

processes, but, to date, these streamlining efforts have not always 

resulted in more timely decisions about conference requests in 

accordance with federal internal control standards. In particular, DOD and 

DOE have worked to provide more timely decisions by streamlining their 

Conclusions
 

Page 34 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

review and approval processes to shorten the length and by setting 

specific deadlines for applicants to submit conference requests. However, 

DOD and DOE continue to lack decision making time frames and provide 

request decisions to applicants without consideration of their needs for a 

specific conference. Providing assurance that conference expenditures 

are cost-effective and advance agencies’ missions and goals is important 

for the effective and efficient use of federal funds, and was a key aspect 

of what DOD’s and DOE’s conference policies were intended to achieve. 

However, until DOD and DOE establish time frames for providing 

conference review and approval decisions based on applicants’ needs, 

scientists’ and engineers’ ability to participate in S&T conferences will 

continue to be affected by uncertainty surrounding the timing of these 

decisions.

Further, DOD and DOE have identified and publicly communicated risks 

to their missions from changes in conference participation, such as 

reduced attendance or fewer conference leadership roles. These risks 

include a potential decline in the quality of research conducted by their 

scientists, difficulty attracting or retaining scientists and engineers, and 

diminished leadership by the defense S&T enterprise. However, the 

departments have not analyzed these risks for any potential effects on 

their S&T missions and do not have a plan to do so on a periodic basis, 

which is inconsistent with federal internal control standards. Identifying 

and collecting additional information may help the departments better 

assess such potential effects. Without developing a plan to analyze these 

risks for their potential effects and to periodically reevaluate them, it will 

be difficult for DOD and DOE to effectively manage the potential effects 

from reduced conference participation on the ability of the defense S&T 

enterprise to achieve its missions.

To help provide more timely decisions to those seeking to participate in 

conferences, we recommend the following two actions as part of DOD’s 

and DOE’s ongoing streamlining efforts to reduce the length of their 

conference review and approval processes:

• the Secretary of Defense direct the Secretaries of the military 

departments, in coordination with the Office of the DCMO, to establish 

time frames for providing conference review and approval decisions 

based on applicants’ needs; and

• the Secretary of Energy direct DOE’s Office of Management and the 

Administrator of NNSA, in coordination with the relevant national lab 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 35 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

directors, to establish time frames for providing conference review and 

approval decisions based on applicants’ needs. 

To help manage the risks from changes in conference participation and 

any potential effects on the defense S&T enterprise, we recommend the 

following two actions:

• the Secretary of Defense direct the Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Research and Engineering, in consultation with the Office of the 

DCMO, to develop a plan to analyze and periodically reevaluate the 

risks from changes in participation at S&T conferences for any 

potential effects on DOD’s ability to meet its scientific mission, 

including identifying and collecting additional information needed to 

conduct this analysis; and

• the Secretary of Energy direct the Administrator of NNSA and the 

relevant national lab directors, in consultation with DOE’s Office of 

Management, to develop a plan to analyze and periodically reevaluate 

the risks from changes in participation at S&T conferences for any 

potential effects on NNSA’s ability to meet its scientific mission, 

including identifying and collecting additional information needed to 

conduct this analysis.

We provided a draft of this report to DOD and DOE for review and 

comment. In written comments, which are summarized below and 

reprinted in appendix III, DOD partially concurred with the first 

recommendation and concurred with the second recommendation

directed to it. In its written comments, which are summarized below and

reprinted in appendix IV, DOE concurred with the two recommendations

directed to it. 

In partially concurring with the first recommendation to establish time 

frames for providing conference review and approval decisions based on 

applicants’ needs, DOD stated that it has undertaken significant efforts to 

streamline its conference review process. DOD also stated that it will rely 

upon the collection and validation of appropriate data and any analysis 

and determination of root causes to implement further solutions, which 

may or may not include establishing review and approval time frames. 

While we support DOD’s continued efforts to streamline its conference 

review and approval process, DOD did not provide an explanation as to 

why it would not be appropriate to establish time frames for providing 

conference review and approval decisions based on applicants’ needs. 

As discussed in this report, the uncertainty surrounding the timing of 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 36 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

conference attendance decisions hinders scientists and engineers from 

taking advantage of cost saving opportunities, such as early registration 

discounts and less expensive travel arrangements, as well as 

opportunities to more actively engage at conferences. In addition, DOD

officials have cited the importance of conference participation to help 

ensure technical competence, improve professional development, and 

serve as a venue for the recruitment and retention of qualified scientists 

and engineers, as well as the risks associated with changes in 

conference participation. Given this, we continue to believe that the 

recommendation to establish time frames based on applicants’ needs will 

allow scientists and engineers to more effectively plan for and participate 

in S&T conferences.

In concurring with the second recommendation to develop a plan to 

analyze and periodically reevaluate the risks from changes in participation 

at S&T conferences, DOD noted that it is committed to analyzing the 

impact and, where appropriate, mitigating or eliminating risks to increase 

the ability of its scientific and engineering workforce to fulfill its mission. 

In its written comments, DOE noted that it takes seriously the need to 

balance its responsibility as a steward of taxpayer dollars with the 

benefits that conference participation brings. In concurring with the first 

recommendation, DOE stated that it believes the establishment of 

conference review and approval time frames that consider applicants’ 

needs will also support OMB’s guidance and statutory requirements as 

well as the department’s responsibility to control costs and achieve 

mission goals. DOE stated that it estimates it will complete this 

recommendation by July 31, 2015. In concurring with the second 

recommendation, DOE stated that it anticipates completing its plan to 

analyze and periodically reevaluate the risks for changes in participation 

in conferences by September 30, 2015. These actions, if implemented as 

planned, would address the recommendations.

DOD and DOE also provided technical comments, which we have 

incorporated into the report, as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Energy, and the 

Director of OSTP. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the 

GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

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

Johana Ayers at (202) 512-5741 or ayersj@gao.gov, or John Neumann at 
 

Page 37 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

(202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are 

listed in appendix V.

Johana Ayers

Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

John Neumann

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
 

Page 38 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

List of Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Thad Cochran

Chairman

The Honorable Richard Durbin

Vice Chairman

Subcommittee on Defense 

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman

The Honorable Dianne Feinstein

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives

The Honorable Rodney Frelinghuysen

Chairman

The Honorable Pete Visclosky

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Defense

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

The Honorable Mike Simpson

Chairman

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur
 

Page 39 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Our objectives for this review were to (1) assess whether the Department 

of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) conference policies 

address Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requirements, and 

identify any costs associated with implementing these policies; (2) 

examine changes in science and technology (S&T) conference 

participation since DOD and DOE implemented their conference policies; 

(3) examine the extent to which DOD and DOE have faced and mitigated 

any challenges resulting from conference policy implementation; and (4)

examine the extent to which DOD and DOE have identified and assessed 

any risks from changes in conference participation.

Given the magnitude of the defense S&T enterprise, we selected and 

reviewed a subset of organizations within DOD and DOE’s National 

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) S&T enterprise. We selected the 

three principal DOD research laboratories (labs) operated by the military 

departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force) and all the three NNSA labs.1

• Army Research Laboratory, Adelphi, Maryland;

Although the information we found at these labs is not generalizable to all 

DOD and DOE S&T components, it provides illustrative context about the 

experiences and experiences of this subset of organizations that are key 

components of the defense S&T enterprise. Specifically, the labs within 

our scope are the

• Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.;

• Air Force Research Laboratory, Dayton, Ohio;

• Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, California;

• Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico; and

• Sandia National Laboratories, which has locations in Albuquerque, 

New Mexico, and Livermore, California.

We also selected one defense agency from the DOD S&T enterprise, the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), because it had 

the largest amount of DOD’s Research, Development, and Engineering 

funding in fiscal year 2014 among defense agencies and, according to 

DARPA officials, had significant participation in S&T conferences.

In addition to conducting interviews with officials from the DOD and NNSA 

labs and DARPA, we also interviewed officials from DOD, DOE, and 

 

1

The NNSA labs are operated by contractors on behalf of NNSA.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

professional societies responsible for organizing and sponsoring S&T 

conferences. Specifically, at DOD, we conducted interviews with the

• Office of the Deputy Chief Management Officer;

• Joint Staff Office of Force Structure, Resource and Assessment;

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research and 

Engineering;

• Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Army;

• Office of the Department of the Navy Assistant for Administration;

• Office of the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Air Force;

• Army Materiel Command;

• Army Medical Command;

• Army Research, Development and Engineering Command;

• Office of Naval Research;

• Office of the Air Force Chief Scientist; and

• Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition. 

At DOE, we conducted interviews with the

• Office of Management;

• NNSA Offices of Management and Budget, Defense Programs, and 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation; and

• NNSA field offices associated with the three labs included in our 

scope.

Additionally, we interviewed officials from the White House Office of 

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) about the National Science and 

Technology Council’s effort to collect data on conference participation. 

Finally, we selected and interviewed representatives from five 

professional societies that both sponsor conferences and had the largest 

numbers of conference publications by DOD and DOE scientists and 

engineers from 2004 through 2013.

2

• American Chemical Society; 

 We confirmed with DOD and DOE 

officials that these professional societies were the top five conference 

sponsors with the highest number of publications by DOD and DOE. The 

five professional societies are the

 

2

We used the Thompson Reuters Web of Science database to extract conference 

publication records to use as a proxy for conference attendance by DOD and DOE. We 

analyzed data from 2004 through 2013 as this was the time period over which comparable 

data on conference publications were available through the database.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

• American Physical Society; 

• Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers; 

• Institute of Nuclear Materials Management; and

• International Society for Optics and Photonics.

To assess whether the DOD and DOE conference policies address OMB 

requirements and to identify any costs associated with doing so, we 

reviewed department-wide policies issued by DOD’s Office of the Deputy 

Chief Management Officer and DOE’s Office of Management. We also 

reviewed implementing guidance set forth by each of the military 

departments and their three principal S&T research labs along with NNSA 

and its three labs. For DOD, we reviewed information in our January 2014 

report, in which we assessed the extent to which DOD’s conference 

policy was consistent with OMB requirements, and determined whether 

there was any change in DOD’s policy since we last reported on it.3

To examine any changes in S&T conference participation since DOD and 

DOE implemented their conference policies, we requested conference 

attendance data from the six labs for 1 year prior to the conference 

policy’s implementation in 2012 through the first quarter of fiscal year 

2014, the most recent full quarter available at the time of our request. 

However, we found that the agencies do not collect comprehensive data 

on S&T conference attendance. As a result, we were unable to analyze 

For 

DOE, we assessed DOE’s conference policy against the elements 

specified in OMB’s May 2012 memorandum. Further, we interviewed 

DOD and DOE officials across multiple departmental and S&T 

organizations included in our scope as identified above about DOD’s and 

DOE’s policies. To identify the costs associated with implementing the 

conference policies, we requested information on the amount of staff time 

spent reviewing conference requests or expenses related to information 

technology tools used for conference oversight, incurred since the 

departments implemented their policies. The departments are not 

required to and generally could not provide complete data on 

implementation costs. However, we obtained examples of implementation 

costs during interviews with DOD, DOE, and OSTP officials. We reviewed 

the sources of these examples with the officials, and found the 

information sufficiently reliable for purposes of discussing the range of 

possible implementation costs.

 

3

GAO, Defense Management: DOD’s Conference Policy Is Generally Consistent with 

OMB’s Requirements, GAO-14-150 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 21, 2014).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

S&T conference attendance trends prior to and following implementation 

of the agencies’ conference policies. We also interviewed DOD and DOE 

conference oversight managers and S&T program managers, including 

those with departmental responsibilities as well as those with 

responsibility for the military departments, NNSA, and their respective 

labs, to obtain examples of possible changes in conference participation, 

and reviewed the sources of those examples with officials. DOD and DOE 

officials provided some examples that illustrated decreased attendance 

since conference policy implementation, but the decline cannot be directly 

attributed to the change in policy. Although we did not independently 

verify the reliability of the data provided in these examples, we 

determined that this information was sufficiently reliable for the purposes 

of providing opinions of agency officials and corroborated those opinions 

with representatives from professional societies that organize and 

sponsor S&T conferences. To understand any changes in conference 

participation, we also interviewed representatives from five professional 

societies responsible for organizing S&T conferences. The information we 

obtained from these five professional societies is not generalizable to all 

professional societies, but provides illustrative context from the 

experiences of this subset of societies that sponsor conferences and had 

the largest numbers of conference publications by DOD and DOE 

scientists and engineers from 2004 through 2013.

To address our objectives regarding the extent to which DOD and DOE 

have faced and mitigated any challenges related to implementing their 

conference policies, and have identified any risks from changes in 

conference participation and analyzed their potential effects, we 

conducted a total of 34 interviews, which collectively included 141 DOD 

and DOE officials at multiple departmental and S&T organizations 

included in our scope and conducted a content analysis of the interviews. 

Based on this analysis, we enumerated lists of challenges and mitigation 

strategies as well as benefits identified during these interviews as being 

at risk because of changes in conference participation. We then shared 

these lists with a subset of 44 conference manager and S&T program 

manager officials we interviewed, whom we selected based on their roles 

and responsibilities as part of the conference review and approval 

process. Following this, we provided these officials with an opportunity to 

add any additional information to each of these lists to ensure our lists 

were comprehensive in terms of identifying challenges and risks. Based 

on these lists, we developed and sent a survey to this same subset of 

officials to rate the effect of potential mitigation strategies, and to prioritize 

steps for implementing the strategies. We received responses from 31 of 

the 44 officials surveyed. The information we obtained from this survey is 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

not generalizable to all DOD and DOE conference management and S&T 

program manager officials, but provides illustrative context from the 

experiences of this subset of officials. Further, we reviewed relevant 

documentation on DOD and DOE efforts to mitigate conference policy 

implementation challenges, including studies and proposed guidance. We 

also interviewed DOD, DOE, and OSTP officials and representatives from 

five professional societies responsible for organizing S&T conferences, as 

discussed earlier, to obtain additional information on the benefits that may 

be at risk from changes in conference participation. Finally, we compared 

DOD’s and DOE’s efforts to mitigate any identified challenges and efforts 

to assess the risks from changes in conference participation for any 

potential effects against practices described in the Standards for Internal 

Control in the Federal Government.

4

We conducted this performance audit from February 2014 to March 2015 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1999).
Appendix II: Overview of Department of 

Defense and Military Department Conference 

Review and Approval Authorities

Page 45 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

This appendix provides an overview of the conference review and 

approval authorities the Department of Defense (DOD) and the three 

military departments put in place in response to the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) May 2012 memorandum and its 

requirements for reviewing, approving, and reporting conferences.1

Additional information on DOD’s conference policy can be found in our 

January 2014 report, in which we assessed the extent to which DOD’s 

conference policy was consistent with OMB requirements.2

The Deputy Secretary of Defense issued interim guidance in June 2012 

and a policy memorandum in September 2012 to improve the oversight of 

conference costs across DOD.3 In November 2013, the Deputy Chief 

Management Officer (DCMO), who had been assigned responsibility by 

the Deputy Secretary to implement DOD’s conference policy, issued an 

updated conference policy.4

 

1

Office of Management and Budget, Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency 

Operations, Memorandum M-12-12 (May 11, 2012).

In addition to the DOD-wide guidance, the 

three military departments also issued their own memorandums and 

policies regarding conference oversight, most recently in December 2013. 

Figure 3 depicts a timeline of when OMB, DOD, and the military 

departments issued their policies and guidance, along with a summary of 

the conference review and approval authorities.

2

GAO, Defense Management: DOD’s Conference Policy Is Generally Consistent with 

OMB’s Requirements, GAO-14-150 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 21, 2014).

3

Department of Defense, Implementation of May 11, 2012, Office of Management and 

Budget Memorandum, Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations, 

Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum (June 3, 2012) and Implementation of 

Conference Oversight Requirements and Delegation of Conference Approval Authority,

Deputy Secretary of Defense Memorandum (Sept. 29, 2012).

4

Department of Defense, Implementation of Updated Conference Oversight 

Requirements, Deputy Chief Management Officer Memorandum (Nov. 6, 2013). 

Appendix II: Overview of Department of 

Defense and Military Department 

Conference Review and Approval Authorities
Appendix II: Overview of Department of 

Defense and Military Department Conference 

Review and Approval Authorities

Page 46 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Figure 3: Timeline of Office of Management and Budget, Department of Defense, and Military Department Guidance
Appendix II: Overview of Department of 

Defense and Military Department Conference 

Review and Approval Authorities

Page 47 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Both DOD’s September 2012 policy and the updated November 2013 

policy provided for a tiered review and approval structure for conference 

requests, based on the total cost to the department and whether the 

conference is DOD-sponsored or non-DOD-sponsored. Table 2 shows 

the review and approval structure established by DOD’s current 

conference policy as it applies to the three military departments.

Table 2: Tiered Review and Approval Structure Outlined in the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Conference Policy, by Military 

Department

DOD review and approval 

tiers as established in 

policy Army Navy Air Force

Tier One

Approves DOD-sponsored 

conferences costing in excess 

of $500,000, and non DODsponsored conferences 

costing in excess of 

$100,000.

Secretary of the Army / Under 

Secretary of the Army

Secretary of the Navy / Under 

Secretary of the Navy

Secretary of the Air Force / Under 

Secretary of the Air Force

Tier Two

If delegated by a Tier One 

official, approves DODsponsored conferences 

costing between $100,000 

and $500,000, as well as for 

non DOD-sponsored 

conferences costing between 

$20,000 and $100,000.

Chief of Staff of the Army

Vice Chief of Staff of the Army

Commander, U.S. Army Forces 

Command

Commander, U.S. Army 

Training and Doctrine 

Command

Commander, U.S. Army 

Materiel Command

Administrative Assistant to the 

Secretary of the Army

Chief of Naval Operations

Commandant of the Marine 

Corps

Department of the Navy / 

Assistant for Administration

Director, Navy Staff

Director, Marine Corps Staff / 

Staff Director, Headquarters 

Marine Corps

Administrative Assistant to the 

Secretary of the Air Force 

Air Force Surgeon General

Commanders / Vice Commanders 

of Major Commands

Superintendent, U.S. Air Force 

Academy

Commander, Air Force Research 

Lab

Tier Three

If delegated by a Tier One 

official, approves DODsponsored conferences 

costing less than $100,000 

and non-DOD-sponsored 

conferences costing $20,000 

or less.

General officers

Flag officers

Senior Executive Service 

members

General officers

Flag officers

Senior Executive Service 

members 

General officers

Flag officers

Senior Executive Service 

members

Source: GAO analysis of DOD conference policy. | GAO-15-278

Note: DOD’s tiered approval structure also specifies approval authorities for conferences sponsored 

by or with attendees from: the National Guard; organizations under the purview of the Office of the 

Secretary of Defense, Defense Agencies, and DOD Field Activities; organizations from the Office of 

the Secretary of Defense, Defense Agencies, and DOD Field Activities who do not report to one of 

the Under Secretaries of Defense; the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Combatant Commands.

DOD’s policy permits specified senior leaders within the military 

departments to delegate their approval authority for DOD-sponsored 
Appendix II: Overview of Department of 

Defense and Military Department Conference 

Review and Approval Authorities

Page 48 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

conferences costing less than $500,000. The military departments’ 

policies are consistent with DOD’s policy regarding the delegation of 

approval authority, but the departments have taken various approaches to 

the delegation. In some cases, they have not fully delegated the review 

and approval authorities as allowed by the current DOD policy. 

Specifically:

• The Secretary of the Army delegated approval authority for Armysponsored conferences costing between $100,000 and $500,000 to 

six senior Army officials.

• The Secretary of the Navy delegated authority for all DOD-sponsored 

conferences costing less than $500,000 to the Department of the 

Navy Assistant for Administration.

• The Secretary of the Air Force has delegated authority for DODsponsored conferences with net costs between $100,000 and 

$500,000 to the Administrative Assistant to the Secretary of the Air 

Force.

DOD’s policy also permits specified senior leaders within the military 

departments to delegate their approval authority for attendance at nonDOD-sponsored conferences costing less than $100,000. The military 

departments have delegated approval authorities consistently with DOD 

policy, but the Army and the Navy have used different approaches. 

Specifically:

• The Army delegated authority for non-DOD-sponsored conferences 

costing between $10,000 to $50,000 to the six senior officials at the 

Tier Two level, although DOD policy allows for non-DOD-sponsored 

conferences with a total cost of $20,000 to $100,000 to be approved 

by Tier Two authorities.

• The Secretary of the Navy delegated approval authority for all nonDOD-sponsored conferences costing less than $100,000 to the 

Department of the Navy Assistant for Administration.
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 49 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 50 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 51 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology 

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Energy
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Energy

Page 52 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology 
Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 53 GAO-15-278 Defense Science and Technology 

Johana Ayers, (202) 512-5741 or ayersj@gao.gov

John Neumann, (202) 512-3841 or neumannj@gao.gov

In addition to the contacts named above, key contributors to this report 

were Christopher Murray, Assistant Director, and Tina Won Sherman, 

Assistant Director; Nabajyoti Barkakati; Vijay Barnabas; Erin Behrmann; 

Richard Burkard; Leia Dickerson; Courtney Krebs; Mary Catherine Hult; 

Jesse Lamarre-Vincent; Janice Latimer; Amie Lesser; Amanda Miller; 

Timothy Persons; Richard Powelson; Terry Richardson; Monica Savoy; 

Roger Stoltz; and Matthew Tabbert.

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(100008)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.