Research and Development: DOE Activities and Costs to Oversee Investments
Released: 2017-03-16T00:00:00

Letter

Background

DOE invests in a wide range of civilian R&D programs that are managed by five program offices within the Office of the Under Secretary for Science and Energy, or by ARPA-E, which reports directly to the Secretary of Energy. These offices have the goal of enhancing U.S. security and economic growth through transformative scientific and technological innovation, and through market solutions to overcome science, energy, and environmental challenges that the United States faces. These program offices and ARPA-E fund R&D that is conducted by DOE national laboratories, universities, industry, nonprofit organizations, state governments, and other federal laboratories. Each program office and ARPA-E may fund R&D at any of the national laboratories. For example, the Office of Science funds civilian R&D at all 17 of DOE’s national laboratories, including the national laboratories sponsored by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Similarly, national laboratories may receive funding from any of the program offices and ARPA-E, as well as from other governmental agencies and nongovernmental entities. The five program offices and ARPA-E fund and oversee civilian R&D that aligns with their missions, as described below:

The Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability’s mission is to strengthen, transform, and improve U.S. electricity infrastructure and to provide leadership to ensure that U.S. energy delivery systems are secure, resilient, and reliable. The office does not oversee a national laboratory but it is supported by staff located at the Office of Fossil Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory.

The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s mission is to create and sustain American leadership in the transition to a global clean energy economy. The office oversees the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado.

The Office of Fossil Energy’s primary mission is to ensure reliable fossil energy resources for clean, secure, and affordable energy while enhancing environmental protection. The office oversees the National Energy Technology Laboratory—with locations in Oregon, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia—which is the only DOE national laboratory operated by the government rather than a contractor.

The Office of Nuclear Energy’s primary mission is to advance nuclear power as a resource capable of meeting the nation’s energy, environmental, and national security needs by resolving technical, cost, safety, proliferation resistance, and security barriers. The office oversees the Idaho National Laboratory.

The Office of Science’s mission is to deliver scientific discoveries and major tools that transform our understanding of nature and advance the energy, economic, and national security in the United States. This office is the nation’s single largest funding source for basic research in the physical sciences, and supports research in energy sciences, advanced scientific computing and other fields. The office oversees 10 of DOE’s national laboratories.

ARPA-E’s mission is to sponsor high-potential, high-impact energy technologies that are considered too early for private-sector investment. ARPA-E does not oversee a national laboratory.

Of the five program offices noted above, four consist of several types of offices that manage and oversee DOE’s R&D investments; these four are the offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science. First, each of these program offices has a headquarters office in the Washington, D.C. area that includes senior leadership and that may include offices that provide support across the program office, such as policy development and oversight, budget, public relations and congressional outreach, and technical assistance programs as well as other administrative and support units. According to DOE officials, the extent to which staff functions are centralized in headquarters offices varies across program offices. Second, the program offices include research offices, generally collocated with headquarters offices, that manage particular scientific areas and research portfolios and provide strategic direction for these areas. For example, the Office of Science includes six research offices that steward different scientific areas. Third, the program offices have site offices—collocated with each national laboratory—that manage the laboratory contracts, oversee federal facilities at the laboratories and, in some cases, manage financial assistance awards to universities and industry, as well as other contracts.

ARPA-E and the other program office—the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability—make smaller R&D investments, have significantly fewer staff, and do not oversee a national laboratory. As a result, they are organized differently from the other four program offices. According to an ARPA-E official, all ARPA-E staff are located at a central office, and research projects are organized around individual program directors. In the case of the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, the office has one suboffice that is dedicated to research and development; other suboffices are dedicated to regulatory or coordination functions.

Figure 1 lists ARPA-E and the five program offices we reviewed, along with research offices and site offices within those program offices.

Figure 2 shows the locations of the 13 national laboratories that primarily conduct civilian R&D under the oversight of the program offices we reviewed. This figure does not include the 4 other DOE national laboratories that may also conduct civilian R&D for the offices we reviewed.

Of the 13 national laboratories that primarily focus on civilian R&D for DOE, 12 are owned by the federal government and are operated by management and operating (M&O) contractors. The R&D funded by DOE is carried out under the department’s direction and is managed by scientists, engineers, and others employed by the laboratory contractor. The remaining national laboratory—the National Energy Technology Laboratory—is operated by DOE. Therefore, the scientists and engineers who conduct the R&D at this laboratory are primarily federal employees.

In addition to M&O contracts that DOE enters into for the operation of the national laboratories, DOE program offices and ARPA-E provide financial assistance—primarily grants and cooperative agreements—to support R&D at universities, industry, and other entities. Under the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act, an agency is to use a grant agreement when the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to carry out a public purpose authorized by law, and substantial involvement by the agency is not expected. For grants, an agency’s involvement is essentially administrative, and includes standard federal stewardship responsibilities such as reviewing performance to ensure that the objectives, terms, and conditions of the grant are met. In contrast, cooperative agreements differ from grants in that an agency expects to be substantially involved in the project through tasks such as reviewing and approving one stage of a project before work can begin on a subsequent stage.

DOE Uses Various Activities to Oversee Investments in Civilian R&D at National Laboratories, Universities, and Industry

The three program offices we selected for detailed review—the offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science—use various activities to oversee DOE civilian R&D investments in national laboratories, universities, industry, and other entities: these investments totaled $7.36 billion in obligations in fiscal year 2015. The activities these three offices used included activities to: identify research priorities and help determine where to invest in R&D, help ensure that national laboratories conduct R&D in alignment with DOE priorities and that M&O contractors manage the research and federally owned properties at the laboratories safely and efficiently, and help ensure that universities, industry, and other entities are meeting research goals as defined in financial assistance agreements.

DOE Activities to Identify Research Priorities and Help Inform Investment Decisions

For all investments, including those in DOE’s national laboratories, universities, industry, and other entities, the three selected program offices engage in activities to obtain input from multiple sources to identify research priorities and to help inform where DOE invests in R&D.

To help identify specific research priorities, these three program offices review objectives established in the DOE strategic plan and other DOE documents, such as the Quadrennial Energy Review and the Quadrennial Technology Review. These DOE documents are in turn influenced by national policies such as the President’s Climate Action Plan of 2013. For example, one of the objectives of DOE’s strategic plan is to advance sustainable hydropower technologies in order to help double renewable energy generation in the United States between 2012 and 2020, a goal of the President’s Climate Action Plan.

Additionally, the program offices hold scientific and technical workshops with the scientific community—scientists and researchers in universities, industry, and government—to help identify priority research areas that, if supported, could contribute to overcoming barriers to advancing particular energy technologies. For example, the Office of Nuclear Energy sponsored a series of workshops in 2015 that sought to identify ideas for advancing nuclear energy technologies.

Furthermore, the program offices have established federal advisory committees that provide expert input on particular knowledge gaps or infrastructure needs at the national laboratories. For example, in 2014 a panel of the federal advisory committee for the High Energy Physics research office issued a long-term plan for supporting particle physics, including recommending upgrades at a number of accelerator facilities, such as at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.

DOE program offices also engage in other activities to help develop research priorities, such as attending conferences, regularly reviewing published literature, regularly meeting with national laboratory staff, and engaging with interagency working groups. In addition, according to DOE officials, new ideas often come from the scientific community in the form of proposals submitted in response to solicitations from the program offices.

DOE Oversight Activities for R&D Investments in National Laboratories

To help ensure that DOE civilian R&D investments in national laboratories ($5.14 billion in obligations in fiscal year 2015) align with DOE priorities, and that M&O contractors manage research and federally owned properties safely and efficiently, the offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science carry out three broad types of activities for their respective national laboratories. We identified these activities through reviews of DOE documents and interviews with officials from DOE’s program offices and site offices.

First, the three program offices conduct planning activities to help ensure that DOE investments in the laboratories support national R&D priorities. For example, the program offices require that each M&O contractor that operates a national laboratory develop a long-term strategic plan for its laboratory. The DOE program offices and the relevant site office staff review the plans and provide feedback to the laboratory contractor. These plans can identify the laboratory’s vision for the future, core capabilities, major initiatives, and laboratory infrastructure needs, among other things.

The three program offices conduct this process with their laboratories on an annual basis. Complementary to this, program offices may also develop their own strategic planning documents. For example, within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, research offices develop strategic “roadmaps” that establish a vision with broad and long- range goals to provide overall program direction. Some offices also develop multi-year program plans, which are operational guides for how research offices will manage their activities.

Second, research offices and site offices conduct various oversight activities of the new and ongoing R&D projects and scientific facilities that DOE invests in at the national laboratories.

As of the beginning of fiscal year 2016, the offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science supported and oversaw 32 designated user facilities that were primarily located at national laboratories. A designated user facility is a federally sponsored research facility available for external use to advance science or technology. These facilities are open to researchers and scientists without regard to nation of origin or institutional affiliation. Potential users may be allocated time in the facilities after a merit review of the proposed work. Users of the facilities are not charged a fee if they publish research results in open literature; for proprietary work that is not disclosed publicly, the user is charged full cost recovery. Each of these designated user facilities represents a significant investment of federal funds. For example, according to DOE documents, the Advanced Photon Source, one of four designated user facilities at the Argonne National Laboratory in fiscal year 2015, was completed in 1995 at a cost of $812 million. Since then, DOE has funded more than $100 million in upgrades. The facility produces x-rays that allow scientists to conduct research on the structure and function of materials—for example, to aid in the development of new pharmaceuticals.

Research offices solicit research proposals from national laboratories. This proposal solicitation helps the offices determine where to invest DOE funds. The national laboratories submit work proposals for new and ongoing projects, and research office staff review these proposals and hold merit reviews—often with outside experts— to help determine which laboratory projects to invest in. According to information provided by the Office of Science, research offices conduct in-depth merit reviews for new laboratory work proposals, and most research offices review about one-third of ongoing laboratory projects each fiscal year; these reviews generally consist of three or more individual peer reviewers. For example, according to the Basic Energy Sciences research office, which is one of the Office of Science’s six research offices, in fiscal year 2015 research office staff reviewed approximately 132 of 395 ongoing laboratory projects, in addition to 64 new work proposals.

Research office staff monitor project performance. These staff conduct this monitoring through other periodic reviews, site visits, and regular meetings or phone calls with laboratory management and project staff, according to DOE officials. DOE officials told us that a significant portion of research office activities involved overseeing the large number of ongoing projects at the national laboratories. For example, according to information provided by the Office of Science, in fiscal year 2015, its research office staff oversaw more than 1,600 new or ongoing projects that received $3.67 billion in obligations that fiscal year. Project size, risk, technological maturity, and other factors can influence how often research office staff review these laboratory projects or meet with project staff. For example, according to officials in the Office of Nuclear Energy, contractors must submit quarterly project reports, and the office holds formal monthly reviews in which laboratory projects are evaluated against performance metrics. Likewise, for Office of Science construction projects, research offices collaborate with site office staff and review projects to ensure they meet their technical, cost, scope and schedule milestones, according to DOE officials.

Site offices ensure that laboratory M&O contractors meet contract requirements. For example, one such requirement is that the contractor have a contractor assurance system to oversee its performance and to self-identify and correct potential problems. Each M&O contractor must establish a contractor assurance system that includes management systems and processes to generate the information needed to manage and improve the contractors own performance. Site office staff are responsible for reviewing, monitoring, and assessing the effectiveness of the system to ensure it is working and meets contract requirements. A contractor assurance system also allows site office staff to monitor the contractors own internal assessments and reviews, thereby reducing the number of reviews that the site office otherwise might conduct. For example, Argonne site office officials told us that the Argonne National Laboratory M&O contractor self-identified and corrected a radiation inventory problem at a laboratory building and kept site office staff informed of laboratory actions.

Site office staff conduct independent and joint reviews. These staff conduct their own independent reviews, as well as joint reviews with contractor staff, of laboratory facilities to ensure federal properties are being managed safely and efficiently. For example, according to information provided by the Golden Field Office, in fiscal year 2015, site office staff conducted 366 safety and health reviews at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. Examples of these reviews include construction project safety inspections; laboratory inspections, readiness verifications, compliance visits, and risk assessments of the laboratory safety and health programs; and assessment of lab performance. Site office staff also conducted hundreds of other reviews in areas such as environmental oversight, physical and cyber-security, and financial oversight.

Site offices are responsible for administering the M&O contracts.

This responsibility includes taking actions such as modifying the contract to add funding for laboratory work or to incorporate new applicable directives from DOE and the Office of Management and Budget. According to site office staff we interviewed, the incorporation of new directives into an M&O contract is an ongoing effort that requires coordination with the contractor and often negotiation about the terms added to the contract. For example, according to officials at one site office, to address a new DOE order that called for particular safety management procedures at DOE facilities, officials tailored the contract so that the new contract language would apply to only the scientific user facility with the highest risk at the laboratory—this action reduced the number of safety management procedures required of the contractor while complying with the new order.

Site offices must have specific staff to oversee construction and upgrades. These staff—referred to as federal project directors— oversee the construction of any new scientific facilities or upgrades to existing facilities. These federal project directors also may be assigned from a site office or from the Office of Science’s Integrated Support Center to a project site other than a national laboratory. For example, according to DOE officials, a federal project director at the Integrated Support Center is responsible for overseeing construction of the Facility for Rare Isotope Beams at Michigan State University, a $730 million project.

Site offices may conduct other activities to provide centralized support to other site offices and the larger program office. Areas of support include intellectual property and other legal services, procurement, human resources, information technology, and safety and security. Within the Office of Science, many of these activities are provided by the Integrated Support Center. The Idaho Operations Office and the Golden Field Office provide many of these services to the Office of Nuclear Energy and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, respectively.

Third, at the end of each fiscal year, program offices use a performance evaluation and measurement plan to assess each laboratory contractor’s scientific, technological, managerial, and operational performance. The plan is developed collaboratively by the responsible program office, including the site office, and the laboratory M&O contractor before each fiscal year, and it helps form the basis for the evaluation of the laboratory contractor at the end of the year. Research office staff are responsible for evaluating laboratory mission-related areas of the plan, including the contractor’s ability to deliver science and technology to meet DOE missions. Site office staff evaluate the contractor’s operations at the laboratory, including the use of the contractor assurance system, according to DOE documents and officials. Results from this performance evaluation inform the contractor’s award fee determination as well as the possibility of earning additional years on the contract through an award term extension.

DOE Oversight Activities for R&D Investments in Universities, Industry, and Other Entities

The offices of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Nuclear Energy, and Science use various processes to help oversee DOE’s civilian R&D investments in universities, industry, and other entities ($2.22 billion in obligations in fiscal year 2015). Research office staff in these three program offices develop solicitations—also referred to as funding opportunity announcements—for R&D proposals from universities, industry, and other entities. They then conduct or manage merit reviews of submitted proposals, an activity that generally includes independent reviews from technical, subject matter experts. Research office staff identify and recruit teams of experts for these merit reviews. According to DOE officials, program managers take these expert reviews into consideration, along with factors such as portfolio balance and available funds, before making funding recommendations to DOE leadership. According to data provided by DOE, research office staff in the five program offices and ARPA-E conducted or managed more than 6,600 proposal reviews—with reviews consisting of as many as 3 or 4 individual reviewers—to select 1,691 new financial assistance awards in fiscal year 2015.

In addition to overseeing new proposals from universities and industry, research office staff oversee thousands of projects that were awarded in previous years, also known as continuing awards. As shown in table 1 below, in fiscal year 2015, DOE research offices oversaw 4,921 continuing awards (projects).

Research offices may oversee projects differently, depending on factors such as the maturity of the science or technology, the size and complexity of the work, the size and makeup of the awardees (single institution vs. multi-institution), and the risk of the project, according to DOE officials. Research office staff tailor the level of oversight to the size, scope, and complexity of the project to ensure awardees are meeting research goals as defined in the proposal award agreement. Office of Science officials told us they generally receive annual reports from awardees and have annual project reviews for small financial assistance awards. These officials told us that for larger and more complex grants and cooperative agreements, there may be significantly more oversight, such as through a greater frequency of meetings and progress reports. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and the Office of Nuclear Energy, which primarily invest in applied research and development projects, typically use cooperative agreements instead of grants, as cooperative agreements allow substantial federal involvement in the projects to help ensure that projects meet specific program office technology goals. These program offices may use a range of oversight activities to help ensure projects succeed. For example, according to Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy officials, program and project managers follow guidance that requires quarterly project reviews, annual site visits, frequent in-person meetings, and bi-annual peer reviews of the entire project portfolio—a more active management and oversight level than required for small grants. In addition, all financial assistance projects in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy are required to meet certain milestones, and projects that do not meet these milestones could lose funding.

To complement project oversight by research office staff, site office staff provide administrative support for financial assistance awards. Specifically, the Golden Field Office in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the Idaho Operations Office in the Office of Nuclear Energy, and the Integrated Support Center in the Office of Science administer awards through activities such as preparing solicitations, negotiating award terms with recipient institutions, and closing out awards, among other things. According to information provided by these program offices, in fiscal year 2015, the offices managed $1.82 billion in obligations for thousands of new and continuing financial assistance awards. DOE officials indicated that financial assistance awards that did not receive obligations also required support. For example, according to information provided by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, in addition to managing obligations for new and continuing financial assistance awards in fiscal year 2015, the Golden Field Office administered another 1,625 awards that had previously received obligations as well as awards that were completed and were in the process of closing out.

DOE Staffing Levels to Oversee Civilian R&D Investments Declined from Fiscal Year 2011 to Fiscal Year 2015, and Staff Costs Increased Slightly

From fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2015, DOE staffing levels for oversight of civilian R&D investments declined by 11.0 percent, while obligations for the civilian R&D that the staff oversaw increased by 3.8 percent. The obligations for staff costs of DOE oversight of civilian R&D increased by 2.4 percent overall from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2015, and these costs varied among the five program offices and ARPA-E. DOE obligations for staff costs decreased 4.0 percent over this period when adjusted for inflation.

Staffing Levels for DOE Oversight of Civilian R&D Declined from Fiscal Year 2011 to Fiscal Year 2015 as Obligations for Such R&D Increased

From fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2015, DOE staffing levels for oversight of civilian R&D—including staff in the five DOE program offices and ARPA-E—declined from 2,937 to 2,613 full-time equivalent employees, a decrease of 11.0 percent. Four of the five DOE program offices accounted for the entire decline in staffing levels. In contrast, ARPA-E staffing levels increased over this period as the agency expanded (see fig. 3 below). Appendixes I and II present further data on staffing levels in the five program offices and ARPA-E, as well as data on staff costs and R&D obligations.

According to information provided by DOE, a number of factors contributed to staffing level declines. For example, according to information provided by the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, the completion of projects associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) resulted in a reduction in staff brought on board to manage these projects. Other offices attributed changes in staffing to causes such as budgetary pressures and voluntary separation programs. One site office we visited reported that as employees left or retired, the office did not fill open billets; instead, the office spread the responsibilities among remaining staff. Office reorganizations also contributed to staffing declines. For example, Office of Science officials reported to us that the office consolidated many of its support functions, including human resources and legal services, which resulted in a 10 percent reduction in staff over several years, with further reductions planned for fiscal year 2016.

As staff levels decreased overall, the five DOE program offices and ARPA-E were responsible for overseeing and implementing civilian R&D obligations that increased from $7.09 billion in fiscal year 2011 to $7.36 billion in fiscal year 2015, an increase of 3.8 percent. Civilian R&D obligations from the program offices changed by varying degrees over this period, ranging from a decrease of 23.3 percent in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (a decrease of 28.1 percent when adjusted for inflation) to an increase of 8.8 percent in the Office of Nuclear Energy (an increase of 1.9 percent when adjusted for inflation). ARPA-E’s civilian R&D obligations experienced a more than 100-fold increase because the agency, which was founded and initially funded in 2009, grew significantly during the period under review.

Overall Obligations for Staff Costs of DOE Oversight of Civilian R&D Increased Slightly from Fiscal Year 2011 to 2015, and Varied among Program Offices and ARPA-E

Total obligations for staff costs to oversee DOE’s civilian R&D investments increased from $632.9 million in fiscal year 2011 to $647.9 million in fiscal year 2015—an increase of 2.4 percent during the period under review (a decrease of 4.0 percent when adjusted for inflation). Staff costs include salaries and benefits, travel, support services, and other costs, such as contributions to DOE’s working capital fund for common administrative services such as building occupancy and network and telephone services. The extent of the change in staff costs varied among the five DOE program offices and ARPA-E from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2015. Over this period, the change in obligations for staff costs in DOE’s five program offices ranged from a decrease of about 8 percent each at the Offices of Nuclear Energy and Science (a decrease of about 14 percent when adjusted for inflation), to an increase of 16.0 percent at the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability (an increase of 8.8 percent when adjusted for inflation). ARPA-E’s obligations for staff costs more than doubled and staff levels increased.

The overall increase in obligations for staff costs would have been greater if DOE had received the full amount it requested in appropriations, according to DOE officials. According to these officials, while staff costs are determined by DOE offices based on staffing plans and estimated staffing needs, the appropriations provided by Congress establish an upper limit to staff costs and may not represent DOE budget requests for the program offices and ARPA-E. For example, in fiscal year 2015, DOE requested $189.4 million for staff costs for the Office of Science and was appropriated $183.7 million.

Of the $647.9 million that DOE obligated for staff costs in fiscal year 2015, $179.9 million (27.8 percent) was for headquarters office staff, $173.5 million (26.8 percent) was for research office staff, and $294.6 million (45.5 percent) was for site office staff, as shown in table 2 below. For further information about the functions performed by these staff, see appendix I.

The obligations for total staff costs as a percentage of total obligations (R&D and non-R&D obligations) varied among the program offices and ARPA-E (see fig. 4). For example, in fiscal year 2015, the percentage ranged from 3.6 percent in the Office of Science to 21.4 percent in the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability. Staff costs as a percentage of total obligations across all the program offices and ARPA-E was 7.6 percent in fiscal year 2015.

DOE officials did not identify discrete causes for variations in obligations for staff costs as a percentage of R&D obligations, but we identified several factors that can contribute to such variations through our discussions with DOE officials and a review of DOE documents. These factors include:

The extent to which an office uses cooperative agreements instead of grants. As discussed above, cooperative agreements are to be used when an agency anticipates that substantial federal involvement in performance or project activities may be necessary. DOE officials said that cooperative agreements may incur higher staff costs than grants because of this increased involvement. According to DOE officials, program offices that invested primarily in applied R&D typically used cooperative agreements.

The extent to which an office supports non-R&D activities.

Obligations for non-R&D activities, such as regulatory support, come out of staff costs and may have limited or no corresponding R&D obligations, thus increasing staff costs’ share of the total. For example, the Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability issues permits for construction of electrical transmission lines that cross national boundaries, and the office coordinates with the Department of Homeland Security on electrical grid issues in emergency planning. In fiscal year 2015, 64.5 percent of the office’s total obligations were for R&D activities ($86.5 million of $134.1 million in total obligations); in contrast, 36.7 percent of obligations for staff costs was to oversee R&D ($10.5 million of $28.7 million obligated in staff costs).

Other factors unique to certain offices. For example, ARPA-E obligations for staff costs in fiscal year 2015 included support for 52 federal staff as well as 49 support services contractors, a greater proportion of contractors than in the five program offices. In addition, fiscal year 2015 obligations for staff costs in the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy supported ARRA projects, even though there were no R&D obligations for these projects during this period. In particular, program office staff continued to manage and close out ARRA awards until the end of fiscal year 2015.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to DOE for its review. DOE provided written comments, which we have reprinted in appendix III. DOE also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate throughout our report.

In its written comments, DOE stated that it generally agreed with the summarized statements in the draft report. In addition, DOE stated that its program offices and ARPA-E are structured differently to address their unique mission needs and oversight responsibilities, and that it is not appropriate to make staff comparisons across the different offices as staff functions vary. We believe that side-by-side analyses of the number of staff and staff functions across the DOE program offices and ARPA-E are appropriate as we requested similar data from all of the DOE program offices and ARPA-E. Moreover, where we did compare data, we did not draw conclusions from the comparisons, and we explained the differences in office structures to provide context. For further context, we added clarifications and details as suggested to us by DOE officials.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Energy, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be 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 me at (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 key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV.

Appendix I: Staff Oversight Functions in DOE Headquarters, Research, and Site Offices, Fiscal Year 2015

Program office and Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA- E) activities to oversee civilian research and development (R&D) investments were split among staff in headquarters offices, research offices, and site offices, where the staff performed various functions.

Site Office Staffing and Functions

The role of the site offices is to manage the management and operating (M&O) contracts with laboratories and oversee federal facilities. The composition of site office staff varies depending on the characteristics of the laboratory and the responsibilities of the individual site office; this composition can range from contracting officers to federal project directors and environmental, health, and safety inspectors. For example, the Idaho Operations Office is responsible for 331 federal properties at the Idaho National Laboratory, including overseeing the safety and management of 17 nuclear facilities and the storage of nuclear materials. DOE guidelines require a risk determination for such facilities that in turn dictates the number of federal representatives who are assigned to conduct health and safety oversight at each facility. These factors contributed to the Idaho Operations Office having 44 environmental, health, safety, and quality staff, out of 188 total staff. In contrast, the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy reported that it had a similar number of total staff at the Golden Field Office and the National Energy Technology Laboratory but fewer environmental, health, safety, and quality staff.

In addition, site offices also include other staff who indirectly support oversight. For example, the Golden Field Office, the Idaho Operations Office, and the Integrated Support Center include significant numbers of staff who provide contract and finance support or information technology support, or who are intellectual property lawyers (see table 4).

Appendix II: Data on R&D Obligations, Staff Totals, and Obligations for Staff Costs for DOE Offices, Fiscal Years 2011-2015

To learn about staffing levels and costs associated with Department of Energy’s (DOE) offices that oversee research and development (R&D) investments, we developed a data collection instrument that we sent to the five program offices and the Advanced Research Projects Agency- Energy (ARPA-E). The data collection instrument asked for information on program office obligations for R&D, obligations for federal staff, and the composition of program office staffs. The DOE program offices provided the data in the tables below.

The tables below show data by program office and ARPA-E from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2015, including obligations for R&D provided to (1) the national labs and (2) universities and private industry, as well as the number of full-time equivalent staff in each office and staff costs.

Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E)

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Joseph Cook (Assistant Director), Matthew J. Ambrose, and David Messman made key contributions to this report. Also contributing to this report were Camilo Flores, Justin S. Fisher, Richard Johnson, Mae Liles, Cynthia Norris, and Dan C. Royer.