Program Management: DOE Needs to Develop a Comprehensive Policy and Training Program
Published: 2016-11-21T00:00:00

Fast Facts:
The National Nuclear Security Administration within the Department of Energy is in charge of DOE's nuclear security missions.
How well is it managing this crucial responsibility?
We found that DOE and NNSA lacked policies regarding assigning responsibility, delegating authority, and establishing expectations of competence for program managers. They had also not established training programs for their program managers. Addressing these gaps would help NNSA better achieve its critical missions and goals, and better maintain a cadre of professional, effective program managers.
We made recommendations to address these shortcomings.

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Program managers are an important part of the federal government's workforce. They interact with project managers to provide support and guidance on individual projects but also must take a broad view of program objectives and organizational culture. NNSA, a separately organized agency within DOE, is responsible for managing DOE's nuclear security missions. Since 1990, DOE's management of major contracts and projects, including those executed by NNSA, has been on GAO's list of areas at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. DOE and NNSA have undertaken steps to address these challenges but have focused primarily on project management issues.
Senate Report 114-49 includes a provision for GAO to review NNSA program management capabilities. This report examines the extent to which DOE and NNSA have established (1) policies addressing internal control standards and leading practices related to program management and (2) training programs for program managers. GAO reviewed DOE and NNSA policies, consulted internal control and PMI standards, and interviewed DOE and NNSA officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Department of Energy (DOE) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) have not established policies addressing internal control standards and leading practices related to program management. There are no federal government-wide standards specifically addressing program management. However, federal internal control standards include principles that are relevant to key roles such as program managers, and the Project Management Institute (PMI) has established a standard on program management that is generally recognized as a leading practice for most programs. Specifically, internal control standards state that management should assign responsibilities, delegate authority, and establish expectations of competence for key roles such as program managers. According to leading practices, organizations develop program plans, capture and understand stakeholder needs, and establish processes for maintaining program management oversight, among other activities. DOE has not established a department-wide program management policy, and NNSA cancelled its program management policy in 2013 without establishing a new one. A policy incorporating key internal control standards and leading program management practices may help ensure that DOE and NNSA program offices are better able to achieve their missions, goals, and objectives. For example, in a 2016 report examining NNSA's plans to build a plutonium analysis facility, GAO found that the agency had not clarified whether the project would satisfy the mission needs of other NNSA and DOE programs. NNSA might have been better able to clarify this project's mission needs if DOE and NNSA had been operating under a DOE-wide program management policy incorporating leading practices. DOE and NNSA officials said that they recognize the importance of establishing a program management policy, but DOE has not taken steps to do so.
DOE and NNSA have not established training programs for program managers. According to federal internal control standards, management should train key staff to enable them to develop competencies appropriate for key roles, which would include program managers. In addition, according to PMI, a successful program manager exhibits certain core competences, such as leveraging a strong working knowledge of the principles and process of both program and project management. NNSA's cancelled program management policy also required the agency to develop standardized training materials for program managers and track the training requirements for each program manager position. However, according to DOE officials, the department has not developed a training program for program managers. In contrast, DOE has developed a training program for project managers and established an office responsible for managing this program and certifying the qualifications of DOE and NNSA project managers. NNSA officials said that they were unsure if NNSA had ever developed training materials for program managers and that the agency does not track the training requirements for its program manager positions. Of the 15 NNSA program managers GAO interviewed, only five individuals stated that they had received training related to program management. In the absence of a training program for program managers, NNSA may have difficulty developing and maintaining a cadre of professional, effective, and capable program managers.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOE establish (1) a program management policy addressing internal control standards and leading practices and (2) a training program for program managers. DOE had no comments on a draft of this report.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Program managers play a key role in the federal government by  managing programs and overseeing contracts to help agencies get what  they need, at the right time, and at a reasonable price. The role of a  program manager is separate and distinct from that of a project manager.  According to the Project Management Institute, Inc. (PMI), a program  manager interacts with project managers to provide support and guidance  on individual  projects but also must take a broad view of program  objectives and organizational culture and processes. More broadly,  program management helps ensure that a group of related projects,  subprograms, and program activities are managed in a coordinated way  to obtain benefits not available from managing them individually.  PMI has  established a standard on program management that is generally  recognized as a leading practice for most programs. In contrast, there  are no federal government-wide standards specifically addressing  program management. However, federal internal control standards  include principles that are relevant to key roles such as program  managers. For example, according to federal internal control standards,  management should assign responsibilities and delegate authority to  achieve the entity’s objectives, as well as demonstrate a commitment to  develop competent individuals.
The Department of Energy (DOE) oversees a broad range of programs  related to nuclear security, science, energy, and nuclear waste cleanup,  among other missions. The National Nuclear Security Administration  (NNSA), a separately organized agency within DOE, is responsible for  managing DOE’s nuclear security missions, which include ensuring a  safe, secure, and reliable nuclear deterrent; achieving designated  reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile; and supporting the nation’s  nuclear nonproliferation efforts. To support these missions, NNSA is  organized into program offices, which include Defense Programs (DP)  and Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation  (DNN). Each of these offices  oversees numerous programs—such as the B61-12 Life Extension  Program and the U.S. Plutonium Disposition Program—that often involve  the design and construction of large projects to meet program needs.
Since 1990, DOE’s management of major contracts and projects,  including those executed by NNSA, has been on our list of areas at high  risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. To address these  long-standing challenges, DOE and NNSA have undertaken a number of  activities such as revising DOE’s project management order and  strengthening training courses and certification requirements for project  managers. However, these efforts are focused primarily on project  management, not program management. For example, as we found in  November 2014, DOE’s cost estimating guidance and requirements do  not apply to programs (including programs with project-like  characteristics). We concluded in our report that without a requirement  for conducting reviews of programs, neither DOE nor NNSA has  appropriate internal controls to assess the quality of program  performance over time.
In this context, a Senate Report accompanying a bill for the National  Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 included a provision for us  to review NNSA’s program management capabilities. Because DOE’s  policies apply to NNSA operations, we also reviewed DOE’s program  management capabilities. This report examines the extent to which DOE  and NNSA have established (1) policies addressing internal control  standards and leading practices related to program management and (2)  training programs for program managers.
To conduct this work, we reviewed DOE and NNSA directives (i.e.,  orders, guides, and policy letters), as well as directives established by DP  and DNN. We focused on these two NNSA offices because they  accounted for the majority of NNSA’s fiscal year 2016 budget. We  interviewed officials from DOE’s Office of Management and Office of  Project Management Oversight and Assessments, as well as from  NNSA’s Office of the Administrator, Office of Management and Budget,  and Office of Acquisition and Project Management. We also interviewed  15 program managers from a nonprobability  sample of DP and DNN  programs. We selected these programs on the basis of a number of  factors, including the size of the program (in terms of its funding level)  and the organizational location of the program. In general, we tried to  select larger programs as well as programs managed by different offices  within DP and DNN. We excluded from our sample programs on which  we had ongoing or recently completed audit work. Because this was a  nonprobability sample, we are not able to generalize our findings to all  NNSA programs, but our review of these programs is illustrative.
To examine the extent to which DOE and NNSA have established policies  addressing internal control standards and leading practices related to  program management, we compared DOE and NNSA directives with  federal standards for internal control and PMI’s standard for program  management. Specifically, we reviewed DOE and NNSA directives to  determine the extent to which they addressed internal control principles  associated with an organization’s control environment and the five areas  of program management work described by PMI: program strategy  alignment, program benefits management, program stakeholder  engagement, program governance, and program life cycle management.
To examine the extent to which DOE and NNSA have established training  programs for program managers, we compared DOE and NNSA  directives with federal internal control standards and PMI’s standard for  program management. Specifically, we reviewed DOE and NNSA  directives to determine the extent to which they addressed internal control  principles associated with an organization’s control environment and  PMI’s description of core competencies for program managers. In  addition, to determine the applicability of federal acquisition career  development requirements to the training of program managers, we  reviewed Office of Management and Budget policies and interviewed  officials from the Federal Acquisition Institute and Department of  Defense’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,  Technology and Logistics.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2015 to November  2016 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: This section describes (1) DOE directives and NNSA policy letters, (2)  federal internal control standards related to program managers, and (3)  leading practices related to program management.
subsections: section_title: DOE Directives and NNSA Policy Letters
paragraphs: According to DOE’s Departmental Directives Program order, directives  are DOE’s primary means to set, communicate, and institutionalize  policies, requirements, responsibilities, and procedures for departmental  elements (including NNSA) and contractors. DOE classifies its  directives into several types, including orders and guides, which DOE  describes as follows:
Orders. Orders establish management objectives, requirements, and  assignment of responsibilities for DOE federal employees.
Guides. Guides provide information on acceptable means for  complying with requirements contained in orders. They are a  voluntary means for complying with these requirements and cannot be  made mandatory by reference in other DOE directives.
Under the National Nuclear Security Administration Act, the Secretary of  Energy is responsible for establishing policy for NNSA. The NNSA  Administrator, however, has authority over, and is responsible for,  programs and activities of NNSA, including policy development and  guidance, as well as program management and direction. The act  further provides that the NNSA Administrator has the authority to  establish NNSA-specific policies, unless disapproved by the Secretary of  Energy. NNSA establishes its policies through the issuance of policy  letters. These policy letters take the form of NNSA policies,  supplemental directives, and business operating procedures.
section_title: Federal Internal Control Standards Related to Program Managers
paragraphs: The program manager plays an important role in implementing an  effective internal control system. According to federal standards for  internal control, management should take a number of actions targeting  key roles such as program managers. For example, management  should assign responsibility and delegate authority to key roles to achieve  the entity’s objectives. Specifically, management considers the overall  responsibilities assigned to each unit, determines what key roles are  needed to fulfill the assigned responsibilities, and establishes the key  roles. Management also determines what level of authority each key role  needs to fulfill a responsibility.
Federal standards for internal control also state that management should  demonstrate a commitment to develop competent individuals. Important  attributes associated with this internal control principle are applicable to  program managers and described as follows:
Establishing expectations of competence. Management  establishes expectations of competence for key roles, and other roles  at management’s discretion, to help the entity achieve its objectives.  Competence is the qualification to carry out assigned responsibilities.  It requires relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities, which are gained  largely from professional experience, training, and certifications. It is  demonstrated by the behavior of individuals as they carry out their  responsibilities. Personnel need to possess and maintain a level of  competence that allows them to accomplish their assigned  responsibilities.
Training personnel. Management develops competent personnel to  achieve the entity’s objectives. In particular, management considers  the training of its personnel to enable individuals to develop  competencies appropriate for key roles, reinforce standards of  conduct, and tailor training based on the needs of the role.
section_title: Leading Practices Related to Program Management
paragraphs: PMI defines program management as the application of knowledge, skills,  tools, and techniques to a program to meet the program requirements  and to obtain benefits and control not available by managing projects  individually.  Program management involves aligning multiple components  to achieve the program goals and allows for optimized or integrated cost,  schedule, and effort. According to PMI’s standard, which describes  leading program management practices, the work associated with  program management is characterized by the following five areas of  activity.
Program strategy alignment—identifying opportunities and benefits  to achieve the organization’s strategic objectives through program  implementation.
Program benefits management—defining, creating, maximizing,  delivering, and sustaining the benefits provided by the program.
Program stakeholder engagement—capturing and understanding  stakeholder needs, desires, and expectations and analyzing the  impact of the program on stakeholders, gaining and maintaining  stakeholder support, managing stakeholder communications, and  mitigating/channeling stakeholder resistance.
Program governance—establishing processes and procedures for  maintaining program management oversight and decision making  support for applicable policies and practices throughout the course of  the program.
Program life cycle management—managing all the program  activities related to program definition, program benefits delivery, and  program closure.
Each of the five areas encompasses a number of different practices. For  example, developing a program plan is an important component of  program strategy alignment. According to PMI’s standard, the program  plan formally expresses the organization’s concept, vision, mission, and  benefits expected to be produced by the program. The program plan also  defines program-specific goals and objectives and provides authority for  subprograms, projects, and related activities, as well as the framework by  which these program components will be managed and monitored during  the course of the program. The program plan is the overall documented  reference by which the program will measure its success throughout its  duration and should include the metrics for success, a method for  measurement, and a clear definition of success.
As PMI’s definition of program management indicates, program and  project management, while distinct disciplines, are inextricably linked. For  example, according to PMI’s standard, essential program management  responsibilities are linked to project management responsibilities and  include identifying and controlling interdependencies between projects,  addressing escalated issues among the projects that comprise the  program, and tracking the contribution of each project and the non-project  work to the consolidated program benefits. In addition, according to a  2015 report by a panel of the National Academy of Public Administration,  effective program management depends on effective project  management, which itself depends on a cadre of professionals including  not only project managers, but also an array of technical specialties and  disciplines within the project and program management profession, such  as requirements development, cost and schedule estimation, and risk  management.
section_title: DOE and NNSA Have Not Established Policies Addressing Internal Control Standards or Leading Practices Related to Program Management
paragraphs: DOE has not established a department-wide policy addressing internal  control standards or leading practices related to program management,  and NNSA canceled its program management policy in 2013. As  described earlier, according to federal internal control standards,  management should assign responsibilities, delegate authority, and  establish expectations of competence for key roles, which would include  program managers. In addition, according to PMI’s standard describing  program management leading practices, work associated with program  management should address several areas of activity, such as strategy  alignment, which involves developing  program plans, and program  governance, which involves establishing procedures for managing  oversight of programs.
According to DOE officials, however, DOE has not established any  policies specifically related to program management, and no office within  the department is responsible for developing such policies. In addition, on  the basis of our review of DOE directives, we were unable to identify any  policies directly addressing internal control standards related to assigning  responsibilities, authority, or expectations of competence to program  managers, or addressing leading program management practices.  However, we identified a 2005 DOE order that, while not establishing a  DOE-wide policy on program management, directed NNSA to manage its  programs in accordance with NNSA’s own program management policy.  Specifically, NNSA had established its policy for conducting program  management activities in 2004. The policy defined “program” as a group  of ongoing activities and related projects conducted with a defined set of  resources and managed in a coordinated way to achieve mission  objectives and obtain benefits not available from managing them  individually.  It stated that NNSA viewed programs as falling across a  spectrum that ranged from operational programs (such as surveillance of  the nuclear weapons stockpile) at one end to major capital acquisition  projects at the other end. The policy stated that the diversity of NNSA’s  programs demanded a tailored application of program management  principles to accommodate the requirements of each program. NNSA’s  policy required that program management responsibilities and authorities  be defined in writing and that program managers meet certain  expectations of competence, such as demonstrating a practical  understanding of key NNSA and organizational business and  management practices.
NNSA’s policy, however, provided only general guidelines for conducting  program management activities and stated that NNSA’s deputy and  associate administrator offices were responsible for determining how to  apply program management principles within their organizations.
Accordingly, DP and DNN issued their own program management  policies in 2005. Among other things, the policies described each  office’s framework for managing its programs, roles and responsibilities of  program managers and other members of the program management  team, and expectations of competence for program managers. For  example, DNN’s policy described 10 program management functions,  such as developing and validating requirements and developing program  plans. In particular, according to DNN’s policy, each assistant deputy  administrator in DNN was to develop a program management plan that  would establish and clearly document operational policies, procedures,  guidelines, and processes; describe the programmatic work already  accomplished; and describe the work to be accomplished over the life of  the program. In addition, program managers were responsible for  preparing a program execution plan on an annual basis to provide  detailed guidance to program staff for implementing the coming fiscal  year’s work scope. DNN’s policy also described 29 specific  responsibilities of program managers, as well as qualification and training  requirements for them.
NNSA cancelled its agency-wide program management policy in 2013 but  did not establish a new policy that addresses key internal control  standards or leading practices related to program management.  According to NNSA officials and documentation, NNSA canceled its  policy at the request of DP, which had updated its own 2005 program  management policy and found the 2004 NNSA policy to be outdated.  However, NNSA officials told us that they did not know why NNSA did not  revise its 2004 policy or address the impact of its cancellation on NNSA’s  program offices. NNSA officials noted that other NNSA-wide polices exist  related to planning, work authorization, and contractor oversight, and that  these policies address elements of program management, such as  requiring programs to develop annual implementation plans. However,  these policies do not comprehensively address key internal control  standards, such as assigning responsibility, delegating authority, and  establishing expectations of competence, or leading program  management practices, such as strategy alignment and developing  program plans.
Without a department-wide policy on program management, NNSA’s  program offices may not be managing their programs in accordance with  internal control standards or leading practices related to program  management. For example, DNN officials told us that they do not  currently have a program management policy, as their organization’s  2005 policy became outdated and fell out of use around 2010. They said  that they expect to establish a new program management policy by the  end of 2016 but did not provide us with a draft copy to review. As a result,  it is unclear what principles and practices DNN currently follows in  managing its programs. In contrast, DP has revised its program  management policy multiple times since issuing its original policy in 2005.  DP’s most recent policy, issued in January 2016, defines the term  “program,” establishes four categories of program management and  execution requirements for these categories, and defines the activities  that program managers must perform to meet those requirements, among  other things. However, DP’s policy does not fully address internal control  standards related to program management. Specifically, DP’s policy does  not address expectations of competence for its program managers, unlike  earlier versions of its policy.
Establishing a clear, department-wide program management policy that  incorporates key internal control standards and leading program  management practices may help ensure that DOE and NNSA program  offices are better able to achieve their missions, goals, and objectives.  For example, in our 2016 report examining NNSA’s plans to build a multi- billion-dollar facility for plutonium analysis at its Los Alamos site in New  Mexico, we found that the agency had not clarified whether the project  would satisfy the mission needs of DOE and NNSA programs other than  those of DP. In addition, in a 2014 DOE report reviewing NNSA’s plans  to build a multi-billion-dollar facility for uranium manufacturing at its Oak  Ridge site in Tennessee, DOE’s review team recommended that NNSA  create an overarching uranium mission strategy and a position within DP  (referred to by NNSA as the Uranium Program Manager) to take  ownership of NNSA’s overall uranium mission. NNSA might have been  better able to clarify the mission needs associated with these projects if  NNSA and DOE programs had been operating under a department-wide  policy that incorporated (1) leading practices, such as capturing and  understanding stakeholder needs and expectations and other activities  associated with program stakeholder engagement, and (2) internal control  principles related to assigning responsibilities and delegating authority to  key roles such as program managers.
DOE and NNSA officials told us that they recognize the importance of  establishing a program management policy. However, DOE has not taken  steps to develop a policy for program management. In contrast, DOE has  established an office and a department-wide policy dedicated to project  management. Specifically, in July 2015, DOE established the Office of  Project Management Oversight and Assessments as the department’s  central management organization providing leadership and assistance in  developing and implementing DOE-wide policies, procedures, programs,  and management systems pertaining to project management. In  particular, this office is responsible for DOE’s order on project  management for the acquisition of capital assets, which establishes  requirements for the development of project plans, responsibilities and  authorities of project managers, and expectations of competence for  project managers, among other things.
section_title: DOE and NNSA Have Not Established Training Programs for Program Managers
paragraphs: DOE and NNSA have not established training programs for program  managers to ensure that they are capable of meeting core competencies;  as a result, most of the 15 NNSA program managers we interviewed had  not received training related to program management. According to  federal internal control standards and the PMI standard for program  management, to promote the development of a competent workforce,  agencies should ensure that their program managers are properly trained.  Specifically, according to federal internal control standards, management  should train staff to enable them to develop competencies appropriate for  key roles and reinforce standards of conduct. According to the PMI  standard, a successful program manager exhibits certain core  competences, including the ability to manage details while taking a holistic, benefits-focused view of the  leverage a strong working knowledge of the principles and process of  both program and project management;  interact seamlessly and collaboratively with governance boards and  other executive stakeholders; establish productive and collaborative relationships with team  members and their organizational stakeholders;  leverage their own technical knowledge and experience to provide  perspectives that support the understanding and management of  program uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity; and  facilitate understanding through the use of exceptionally strong  communication skills.
However, according to DOE officials, the department does not have an  office responsible for program management that provides training for  program managers. In contrast, DOE has established a training program  for project managers. The Project Management Career Development  Program is responsible for defining necessary project management  knowledge, skills, and abilities; project management training  requirements; a career development tracking system; and a project  management certification program. In addition, DOE’s Office of Project  Management Oversight and Assessments is responsible for managing  this program and ensuring that all DOE project managers (referred to as  federal project directors) are certified according to the requirements of the  program, as well as for tracking the development of staff certified under  the program. According to DOE officials, classes offered by the Project  Management Career Development Program are also open to program  managers. However, DOE officials said that the department had no  plans to modify its project management program to address program  management as well.
NNSA had plans to establish a training program for its program managers  but has not done so. According to its cancelled 2004 policy on program  management, NNSA was to develop (1) standardized training materials  that would demonstrate a program manager’s understanding of and  proficiency with core NNSA processes and management practices and  (2) a database to track the training and certification requirements for each  program manager position. However, NNSA officials said that because  of the loss of senior managers and other staff, they were unsure if these  training materials were ever developed. Furthermore, they said that  NNSA does not currently track information on the training and certification  of program managers in a database. DP officials told us that they are  developing a training certification program for program managers that  covers staff in four areas: systems engineering, program management,  research and development, and budget analysis. However, requirements  associated with this training program would apply only to DP staff.
In August 2016, after our close-out meeting with NNSA and DOE, NNSA  officials told us that NNSA has included program and project  management in its “foundational competency model,” which consists of  competencies universal to the NNSA workforce. NNSA officials said that  they are establishing skill proficiency levels, as well as developmental  activities aligned with those proficiency levels, and that they expect to  implement this model for the NNSA workforce during calendar year 2016  using PMI and other benchmarks. However, we were unable to review  this model to determine its relevance to program management  competencies.
In the absence of a current DOE or NNSA training program for program  managers, most of the NNSA program managers we interviewed did not  have training related to program management. As a result, NNSA may  have difficulty developing and maintaining a cadre of professional,  effective, and capable program managers. Specifically, of the 15 NNSA  program managers we interviewed, 5 told us that they had received  training related to program management: 4 had taken training from the  Defense Acquisition University, and 1 stated that she had taken two  courses related to program management (although she did not indicate  which organization provided this training). The remaining 10 program  managers told us that they had not received training related to program  management. Five of these individuals told us that they had taken training  related to project management from DOE and/or PMI. However, the  remaining 5 individuals told us that they had not received any training  related to program or project management.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: DOE has undertaken a number of activities in recent years related to  strengthening the management of its projects. However, the department  has not maintained a similar focus and level of effort regarding program  management, which is an important ingredient in an organization’s ability  to effectively manage related projects and activities. Specifically, DOE  has not established a program management policy addressing key  federal internal control standards, such as assigning responsibility,  delegating authority, and establishing expectation of competence, or  leading program management practices, such as strategy alignment and  the development of program plans. DOE’s 2005 policy regarding NNSA’s  management of the nuclear security enterprise directs NNSA to manage  its programs in accordance with its own policy; however, NNSA cancelled  its own program management policy in 2013, and its existing policies do  not address internal control standards or leading practices related to  program management. DP currently has in place a program management  policy for its organization, but its policy does not fully address internal  control standards. DNN’s program management policy fell out of use  around 2010, and DNN has not replaced it, which makes it unclear what  principles and practices DNN currently follows in managing its programs.  Establishing a clear, department-wide program management policy that  incorporates key internal control standards and leading practices related  to program management may help ensure that DOE and NNSA program  offices are better able to achieve their missions, goals, and objectives.  DOE and NNSA officials told us that they recognize the importance of  establishing a policy on program management but have not taken steps  to develop such a policy. In addition, although federal internal control  standards call for management to train its personnel to enable them to  develop competencies appropriate for key roles, DOE and NNSA have  not established training programs for program managers. Without a  department-wide training program for program managers, NNSA may  have difficulty developing and maintaining a cadre of professional,  effective, and capable program managers.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To help ensure that NNSA effectively manages the performance of its  programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy establish a  program management policy that (1) assigns responsibilities and  delegates authority to program managers and establishes expectations of  competence for them, in accordance with federal internal control  standards, and (2) addresses leading program management practices,  such as developing program plans.
To help ensure that NNSA develops and maintains a cadre of  professional, effective, and capable program managers in accordance  with leading program management practices and federal internal control  standards, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy establish a  training program for program managers.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to DOE and NNSA for their review and  comment. DOE had no comments on the draft report, and NNSA provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of NNSA, and  other interested parties. In addition, this report is available at no charge  on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@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 significant  contributions to the report are listed in the appendix.
section_title: Appendix: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Diane LoFaro (Assistant  Director), Diantha Garms, and Jason Holliday made key contributions to  this report. Also contributing to this report were Cheryl Andrew, Richard  Burkard, Greg Campbell, Pamela Davidson, and Lisa Pearson.