To carry out NNSA’s nuclear weapons and nonproliferation missions, contractors at the eight NNSA sites conduct research, manufacturing, testing at facilities located at those sites. (See fig. 1.) DOE establishes safety or security requirements based on a categorization of site-specific risks, including hazardous operations and the presence of special nuclear material—material which can be used in producing nuclear weapons. Federal regulations define three categories of nuclear facilities based on the potential significance of radiological consequences in the event of a nuclear accident. These categories range from Hazard category 1 nuclear facilities with the potential for off-site radiological consequences, to Hazard category 2 nuclear facilities with the potential for significant on-site radiological consequences beyond the facility but which would be contained within the site, to Hazard category 3 nuclear facilities with the potential for significant radiological consequences at only the immediate area of the facility. In terms of security, DOE’s security orders establish levels of security protection according to a site’s types and quantities of special nuclear material. Special nuclear material is classified according to 4 levels—Category I Accordingly, DOE’s sites with (highest risk) to Category IV (lowest risk).Category I nuclear materials—including specified quantities and forms of special nuclear material such as nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons components—require the highest level of security since the risks may include the theft of a nuclear weapon or creation of an improvised nuclear device capable of producing a nuclear explosion. As discussed earlier, work activities to support NNSA’s national security missions are largely carried out by M&O contractors. This arrangement has historical roots. Since the Manhattan Project produced the first atomic bomb during World War II, DOE, NNSA, and predecessor agencies have depended on the expertise of private firms, universities, and others to carry out research and development work and operate the facilities necessary for the nation’s nuclear defense. Currently, DOE spends 90 percent of its annual budget on M&O contracts, making it the largest non- Department of Defense contracting agency in the government. NNSA’s M&O contractors are largely limited liability companies consisting of multiple member companies. Contractors at only two NNSA sites—the KCP and Sandia National Laboratories—are owned by a sole parent corporation. NNSA requires its contractors to adhere to federal laws, departmental regulations, and DOE and NNSA requirements that are provided in the department’s system of directives, including policies, orders, guides, and manuals. The agency incorporates directives into contracts and holds contractors accountable for meeting the associated requirements. Contractors, NNSA, DOE, and other organizations manage and oversee operations through a multitiered approach. First, contractors manage operations, conduct self-assessments, and perform corrective actions to maintain compliance with government expectations. Second, NNSA headquarters organizations (1) set processes and corporate expectations for contractors managing the sites, (2) have primary responsibility for ensuring contractors are performing and adhering to contract requirements, and (3) evaluate contractor performance. Third, NNSA’s field offices oversee the contractors on a daily basis. This includes on-site monitoring and evaluating contractor work activities. Fourth, entities outside of NNSA provide independent oversight of contractor performance. In particular, DOE’s Office of Health, Safety, and Security (HSS), is responsible for, among other things, developing the department’s safety and security policy, providing independent oversight of contractor compliance with DOE’s safety and security regulations and directives, and conducting enforcement activities. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board also provides oversight of nuclear safety that is independent of NNSA and DOE. In implementing its new management and oversight approach in 2007, KCP implemented reforms that sought to (1) streamline operating requirements, (2) refocus federal oversight, and (3) provide clear contractor goals and meaningful incentives. KCP reported that these actions produced a number of benefits, including cost reductions at the site. According to the KCP Field Office and contractor, KCP under took the following actions: Streamlined operating requirements. The KCP Field Office sought to streamline operating requirements and limit the imposition of new DOE requirements in the future. These changes included eliminating, where possible, some DOE directives and replacing others with industry or site-specific standards, such as quality assurance requirements and emergency management requirements. The contractor remained obligated to meet all applicable federal laws and regulations. According to the contractor, by 2009, the site had reduced 160 operating requirements from specific DOE orders, regulations, and other standards to 71 site operating requirements. For example, the site replaced requirements from DOE’s quality assurance order with quality assurance processes outlined in the International Standards Organization’s Standard 9001-2008, an international standard used in private industry to ensure that quality and continuous improvement are built into all work processes. KCP was also able to eliminate its on-site fire department by relying on municipal firefighting services to fulfill a DOE requirement for site fire protection capability. To help limit future growth of requirements, KCP implemented a directives change control board. This group, with joint federal Field Office and contractor staff membership, reviews new or revised directives to determine their applicability to the contract, rejecting those requirements not deemed to be relevant. According to a KCP Field Office official, since 2007, the board has rejected 235 of 370 new directives issued by DOE and other sources. The KCP Field Office official noted that reasons for rejecting directives include their inapplicability to a nonnuclear site or because the new directive requirements were already covered in KCP’s site-specific standards. Refocused federal oversight. The KCP Field Office sought to refocus federal oversight by (1) changing its approach from reviewing compliance with requirements to monitoring contractor assurance systems for lower-risk activities; (2) exerting greater control over audit findings at the field office level; and (3) increasing its use of external reviewers. First, the field office changed its oversight approach from reviewing compliance of all contractor activities to allowing the contractor to assume responsibility for ensuring performance in lower- risk activities, allowing federal staff to concentrate resources on monitoring high-risk activities such as safety and security. In this approach, the field office moved from a traditional “transactional” oversight—in which performance is determined by federal oversight staff checking compliance against requirements—to a “systems- based” oversight—in which performance on lower-risk activities is ensured by monitoring the contractor’s systems, processes, and data, including its systems of self-assessment and actions to correct problems. According to KCP Field Office officials, federal oversight staff assumed the role of reviewing the contractor’s management and oversight systems, as well as reviewing selected data provided by these systems, to ensure adequate processes were in place to identify and correct problems. Second, the field office exerted greater control over audit findings from external reviews, by determining which findings would need to be addressed by the contractor. According to KCP Field Office and contractor officials, this ability to accept or reject audit findings from external reviews enabled the field office to prevent implementation of new requirements that would not be applicable at the site. According to another KCP Field Office official, although the field office had this authority under the reforms, it had not rejected any audit findings. Finally, to revise its oversight approach, the KCP Field Office relied more on third-party assessments or certifications of contractor performance in place of federal oversight reviews, according to a field office official. Such assessments included those by the contractor’s parent corporation, as well as external groups, such as the Excellence in Missouri Foundation, which administers the Missouri Quality Award to promote quality in business in the state. Clear contractor goals and meaningful incentives. KCP Field Office officials noted that, under the reforms, the Field Office and the contractor agreed on five outcome areas for contractor performance, and performance award fees were linked to these outcome areas. This differed from the previous approach under which performance award fees were linked to meeting headquarters expectations and directive requirements. KCP Field Office officials noted this allowed them to focus performance award fee on “what” a contractor does, rather than on “how” it meets requirements. Under the reforms, the five outcome areas on which performance would be evaluated included: (1) meeting product schedule; (2) meeting product specification; (3) managing cost; (4) managing assets and resources, including facilities, inventory, and staff; and (5) meeting contract standards. Under the reforms, each year, the KCP Field Office highlighted performance areas of major importance to encourage the contractor to focus resources on those areas, rather than expending resources on what the field office and contractor agrees are less important goals and requirements. In this framework, the contractor is eligible to earn the majority of associated fees as long as adequate performance was achieved. According to the KCP Field Office implementing plan, this differed from the previous approach, under which the contractor needed to exceed performance expectations to earn more than 60 percent of an award fee. KCP Field Office officials noted a key to effective contract management under the reforms was the ability of the field office to hold the contractor accountable by focusing fee on desired outcomes. In implementing the reforms, the site reported it was able to reduce costs in its initial year of implementation, some of which was achieved by decreasing oversight staff. A January 2008 review commissioned by the KCP Field Office to assess cost savings resulting from implementing the reforms reported the Field Office achieved a cost reduction of $936,000 in fiscal year 2007 by eliminating, through attrition, eight full-time staff positions. The total savings this review reported was nearly $14 million (fiscal year 2006 dollars) which comprised cost reductions that had been achieved in fiscal 2007 directly or indirectly by implementing the KCP reforms. This reported $14 million in cost reductions was about 3 percent of the site’s overall fiscal year 2007 budget of about $434 million. According to a KCP Field Office official, no further analyses of cost savings has been conducted since that time.