Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should direct the W87-1 program to ensure consistent, reliable, and objective assessments of remaining feature and component design decisions in Phase 6.2 by developing study plans for remaining design studies consistent with the guidelines for such plans in NNSA's AOA procedure, including documenting and justifying deviations from best practices. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should direct the Office of Defense Programs to revise its program execution instruction to require that design studies for warhead life extension and replacement programs follow AOA best practices, such as by having a study plan, or to justify and document deviations from best practices. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should direct the Office of Defense Programs' plutonium program office to ensure that the integrated master schedule in development for pit production meets NIMS standards, consistent with best practices for schedule development. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should direct the W87-1 program to prioritize the development and documentation of a risk mitigation strategy to address the risk that pit production may be insufficient to meet W87-1 production needs. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should require the W80-4 program, when it issues its baseline cost report prior to entry into phase 6.4, to adopt a date for the delivery of a first production unit, and dates for other key program milestones, based on the program's current schedule risk analysis, or document its justification for adopting alternative schedules and milestones based on other factors. If necessary, the Administrator should alert the Secretary of Energy to the need to engage in the extension or notification processes identified in statute for adopting a first production unit delivery date after September 2025. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should revise the Program Execution Instruction or other related directives to require future LEPs and nuclear weapon modernization programs of similar complexity, when they issue a WDCR or baseline cost report, to establish program schedules and key milestone dates (including the FPU delivery date) on the basis of a formal schedule risk analysis that aligns with best practices, or document the justification for any decision to adopt alternative schedules and milestones based on other factors. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The NPO Cost Savings Program Manager should work with CNS to evaluate the remaining site reinvestment funds and develop and implement a plan for how best to aggregate and use them. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred with the recommendation. In comments on a draft of the report, DOE stated that NPO plans to work with CNS on a plan for the remaining reinvestment funds, with an estimated completion date of December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should gather data on and document an analysis of the Cost Savings Program, including its cost effectiveness, to determine whether it is exportable to existing or future contracts. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred, in principle, with the recommendation. In its comments on a draft of the report, NNSA stated that potential benefits of the cost savings program should be considered for future contracts, as applicable. NNSA stated that it believes this recommendation is closed with actions to address other recommendations. We disagree and continue to believe that NNSA should document an analysis of the cost savings program, including its cost effectiveness, to determine the exportability of the program to other contracts.

Recommendation: The NPO Cost Savings Program Manager should share relevant lessons learned with other NNSA sites so that those sites can determine if efficiencies CNS has achieved can be implemented at other sites. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred with the recommendation. In its comments on a draft of the report, NNSA stated that it plans to upload lessons learned into DOE's Corporate Lessons Learned Database so they can be considered by other sites by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should evaluate whether to require all other sites to institute an Annual Controlled Baseline. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred with the recommendation. In its comments on a draft of the report, NNSA stated that it plans to evaluate whether to expand use of Annual Controlled Baselines to other sites by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Office of the Chief Financial Officer should require payment reporting sites to document their procedures for identifying, tracking, and reporting improper payments to ensure they provide consistent and comparable information about their improper payments over time. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said that it plans to clarify and adjust its current and future guidance to its payment reporting sites to require that the sites (1) develop and maintain procedures to support implementation of its payment integrity requirements for identifying, tracking, and reporting improper payments, and (2) require payment reporting sites to certify that the procedures have been developed and implemented. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.

Recommendation: The Office of the Chief Financial Officer should develop a monitoring process to ensure that payment reporting sites document and implement procedures that will enable them to correctly identify and report improper payments to the OCFO. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said that it will (1) take measures to strengthen and enhance the existing payment integrity monitoring and quality assurance program by conducting period payment reporting site visits and (2) establish a payment integrity working group to identify best practices for incorporation into DOE processes. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.

Recommendation: The Office of the Chief Financial Officer should require payment reporting sites to document policies for tracking questioned costs to resolution. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said they plan to develop and implement processes and procedures for tracking questioned costs to resolution. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.

Recommendation: The Office of the Chief Financial Officer should track information on the year the payment occurred for all improper payments, regardless of when they are identified, and determine and disclose in DOE's AFR whether the department's total annual improper payments exceeded $100 million in any given year. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said it will conduct annual look-back analyses to the extent possible to determine if prior year reporting exceeded the $100 million threshold, and therefore could be subject to additional reporting requirements. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.

Recommendation: The Office of the Chief Financial Officer should clarify guidance to (1) define the factors for assessing adequacy of payment reporting sites' justifications that conducting recapture audits would not be cost-effective, and (2) require that the Office of the Chief Financial Officer review the sufficiency of these justifications against the criteria defined. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said it will revise and enhance procedures defining the OCFO quality assurance process to (1) define the criteria for assessing the adequacy of payment reporting sites' justifications, and (2) review the payment reporting sites' justifications against the criteria defined. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these planned actions.

Recommendation: The Office of the Chief Financial Officer should evaluate whether payment reporting sites could identify enough additional improper payments through payment recapture audits to make those audits cost-effective, such as by performing audits at selected sites. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE disagreed with the recommendation, stating in its comments that it has an ongoing Fraud Risk Management Working Group and that officials have developed a Fraud Risk Management and Data Analytics Implementation Plan to strengthen DOE's capability to prevent, identify, and recover improper payments and fraud. However, DOE's plan is still in draft form and, according to DOE's technical comments, they will not begin using data analytics until fiscal year 2021. In addition, DOE said that existing payment recapture activities to identify and recover improper payments are sufficient. However, as we discuss in the report, DOE determined that it does not need to conduct payment recapture audits based on justifications submitted by the reporting sites. We continue to believe that by evaluating whether it could identify enough additional improper payments to make payment recapture audits cost-effective, such as by performing audits at a limited number of sites, DOE would have an opportunity to identify and recover additional improper payments or have better information to justify that payment recapture audits are not cost-effective. We plan to monitor DOE actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Office of the Chief Financial Officer should revise DOE's department-level process for conducting improper payment risk assessments to include (1) developing and documenting the rationale for the variable scale used to score risk factors and weighting of the payment reporting sites; and (2) documenting DOE's consideration of the inherent risk associated with the lag in identifying certain improper payments subsequent to the fiscal year they occurred to ensure that the process results in a reliable assessment of whether the department is susceptible to significant improper payments. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE did not agree with the recommendation to develop and document the rationale for the scale used to score risk factors and weighting of payment sites, stating that its risk assessment evaluates the volume and dollar amount of payments by payment category, payments subject to manual controls, and fluctuations in volume and dollar amounts. However, we are recommending that the OCFO document the weighting of all its risk factors, including its decision to consider as equal the risks identified by all sites-regardless of the dollar amount of outlays. We continue to believe that, because DOE did not properly document how it developed and considered risk factors during its fiscal year 2018 risk assessment, it cannot ensure that the process produces a reliable assessment of whether DOE is susceptible to significant improper payments. Regarding the consideration of inherent risk, DOE said that the Payment Integrity Risk Assessment directs payment reporting sites to consider inherent risk as part of DOE's Internal Control Program. However, even if none of the sites identifies the known lag in identifying improper payments as a risk, based on our review of DOE's Agency Financial Reports, this lag is a risk to DOE as a whole. Therefore, we continue to believe that DOE should document in its risk assessment process its consideration of the known lag in identifying improper payments. We plan to monitor DOE actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Office of the Chief Financial Officer should revise DOE's department-level policies and procedures for reviewing risk assessments submitted by payment reporting sites to require a review and approval of the documentation supporting these assessments to help ensure the accuracy of the sites' assessments. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE did not agree with the recommendation, stating that sufficient processes are in place for ensuring the accuracy of payment reporting sites' risk assessments. DOE also stated that OCFO's Payment Integrity Guidance instructs payment reporting sites to maintain detailed information supporting risk assessments. However, as we discuss in the report, 5 of the 10 sites we reviewed did not provide sufficient explanation or documentation supporting their ratings for several of the risk factors. We continue to believe that by developing, documenting, and implementing policies and procedures to require the OCFO to review documentation supporting payment site risk assessments, DOE would enhance its ability to adequately monitor its decentralized improper payment risk assessment process and help ensure that individual payment reporting sites accurately score their risk factors, leading DOE to obtain a more accurate and reliable assessment of its overall risk of susceptibility to improper payments. We plan to monitor DOE actions related to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Office of the Chief Financial Officer should revise DOE's department-level policies and procedures for conducting improper payment risk assessments to define the process for overriding a payment reporting site's risk determination, when appropriate. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation and said that itwill clarify the quality assurance process for the payment reporting sites' ratings; however, DOE will not override the individual payment sites' risk determinations. Instead, DOE plans to work as needed with payment reporting site officials to determine the appropriate risk ratings. We will monitor and report on DOE's progress in implementing these actions.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should incorporate additional management controls to better oversee and coordinate NNSA's microelectronics activities. Such management controls could include investing the microelectronics coordinator with increased responsibility and authority, developing an overarching management plan, and developing a mission need statement and a microelectronics requirements document. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In a May 2020 letter signed by the NNSA Administrator that provided agency comments on our draft report, NNSA neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation. However, NNSA stated that by December 2020 the agency plans to complete a strategic management plan that will more clearly articulate the integration of management controls for the various components of its microelectronics activities. NNSA stated that it believes this action is consistent with our recommendation. We are encouraged by this planned action and will evaluate the completed strategic management plan to determine if it meets the intent of our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of LM and the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to develop agreements and procedures for identifying and addressing circumstances at LM sites that require new cleanup work beyond the scope of LM's mission, capabilities, and resources. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DOE concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken actions necessary to implement it. In July 2020, DOE officials told us that the Office of Legacy Management (LM) and the Office of Environmental Management will work together to expand on agreements and procedures for identifying and addressing new cleanup work beyond LM's mission scope of providing long-term stewardship. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by September 30, 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of LM to work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop agreements and procedures for identifying and addressing circumstances at LM sites that require new cleanup work beyond the scope of LM's mission, capabilities, and resources. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DOE concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken actions necessary to implement it. In July 2020, DOE officials told us that the Office of Legacy Management (LM) will work with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to develop agreements and procedures for identifying and addressing new cleanup work beyond LM's mission scope of providing long-term stewardship. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by September 30, 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of LM to, as called for in LM's strategic plan, develop plans to assess the effect of climate change on LM's sites and to mitigate any significant impacts. These plans should incorporate principles from GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework, as appropriate. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In providing comments on this report, DOE concurred with this recommendation but has not yet taken actions necessary to implement it. In July 2020, DOE officials told us that the Office of Legacy Management (LM) uses models to evaluate sites' vulnerability and resilience to environmental trends over time. DOE officials said that LM will build upon its current operations to develop assessment and mitigation plans that take into account any significant effects of climate change and that incorporate principles from GAO's Disaster Resilience Framework, as appropriate. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by September 2022.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management to ensure that EM's final AOA for HLW pretreatment at the Hanford Site includes a definition of mission need and life-cycle cost estimates for the baseline or status quo alternative, as called for in the best practices for an AOA process we have identified and DOE guidance. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, EM officials told us that EM's final analysis of alternatives (AOA) "will include life cycle cost estimates consistent with" best practices and DOE guidance. We will continue to monitor the AOA process and evaluate the extent to which EM follows through with its commitment.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of Environmental Management to follow the steps outlined in GAO's risk-informed decision-making framework as EM makes decisions about the future of the pretreatment mission; in particular, engaging the Washington State Department of Ecology in the AOA process, communicating with them throughout the process, and providing them with transparent information about the rationale behind the final decision. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In September 2020, EM officials told us that EM will "continue to include Ecology in the AOA process as an active participant, providing the opportunity for transparent and open communications through the process, inclusive of rationale used for the final decision." We will continue to follow the AOA process and monitor the extent to which EM follows through with its commitment.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity to publicize promising practices for Title IX compliance on its websites for their university grantees. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. In its February 2020 formal comment letter, the department stated that the Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD) has identified promising practices on an ongoing basis in its Title IX compliance review reports. OCRD will develop and publicize a promising practices guide on its website for reference by university grantees. The estimated completion date is June 1, 2020. GAO will review this action once it receives documentation from DOE.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity to finalize and publish Title IX complaint procedures, consistent with DOJ's regulations. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. In its February 2020 formal comment letter, the department stated that the Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD) has developed a draft outline of complaint procedures. OCRD is benchmarking these procedures against NASA and NSF external civil rights complaint procedures. OCRD will finalize and publish Title IX complaint procedures, consistent with the Department of Justice's regulations. The estimated completion date is October 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Economic Impact and Diversity to assess the feasibility of receiving and reviewing concerns of sex discrimination—including sexual harassment—and communicating to individuals on agency-funded grants the option to notify the agency of these concerns, outside of the Title IX complaint process. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. In its February 2020 formal comment letter, the department stated that the Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD) will evaluate the feasibility of receiving and reviewing concerns of discrimination, including sexual harassment, outside of the Title IX complaint process described in DOE's Title IX regulations, as well as communicating this option to individuals on DOE funded grants. The estimated completion date is December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should establish goals and an overall plan to assess all of the agency's sexual harassment prevention efforts for their university grantees, including methods to regularly monitor and evaluate its sexual harassment prevention policies and communication mechanisms (e.g. Title IX or sex discrimination websites). (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. In its February 2020 formal comment letter, the department stated that the Office of Civil Rights and Diversity will conduct research into best practices for harassment prevention efforts for university grantees and benchmark with other federal agencies. The estimated completion date for establishment of goals is January 31, 2021 and the estimated completion date for establishment of an overall plan is August 31, 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the SCC, DHS, and NIST, as appropriate, to collect and report sector-wide improvements from use of the framework across its critical infrastructure sector using existing initiatives. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In written comments provided in February 2020, the Department of Energy (DOE) stated that it partially agreed with our recommendation. It noted that DOE will coordinate with the Energy Sector to develop an understanding of sector-wide improvements from use of the framework. The expected completion date is December 2021.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should direct RL to conduct a root cause analysis to identify any programmatic causes that may have led to the collapse of PUREX Tunnel 1. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management: Environmental Management Consolidated Business Center
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurs with this recommendations and has agreed to conduct a root cause analysis examining the programmatic cause leading to the Hanford PUREX tunnel collapse. In DOE's October 2020 Audit Report regarding the implementation of recommendations in our report, DOE states that the Office of Environmental Management is taking action to implement this recommendation, but that action is still insufficient to satisfy the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure DOE headquarters offices responsible for the oversight of EM sites' field offices conduct an assessment of RL's management and oversight of the Hanford Site contractor's surveillance and maintenance activity for contaminated excess facilities. Based on the results of this assessment, DOE headquarters offices should consider whether such assessments should be conducted on a periodic basis. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurs with this recommendation and the Office of Environmental Management agreed to conduct an assessment, in coordination with headquarters oversight offices, of the Richland Operations Office's management and oversight of the Hanford Site contractor's surveillance and maintenance activities for contaminated excess facilities. In DOE's October 2020 Audit Report regarding the implementation of recommendations in our report, DOE states that the Office of Environmental Management is taking action to implement this recommendation, but that action is still insufficient to satisfy the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration, with input from NNSA's Office of Management and Budget and respective program offices, should establish and implement a work breakdown structure change control process for common financial reporting that ensures changes are approved by program office management, at a minimum; documented; and communicated to M&O contractors on a timely basis. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation and officials said they are working to establish a work breakdown structure change control process by June 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should assess the extent to which M&O contractors make manual changes to their financial data to reconcile with STARS and determine whether it has an effect on the accuracy of the data collected for common financial reporting. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation and plans to review how management and operating (M&O) contractors make manual changes to their financial data as part of an ongoing review of M&O contractors indirect cost data. The review is expected to be completed by September 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop and implement an internal process for NNSA to verify how the M&O contractors crosswalk financial data from their systems to the appropriate NNSA work breakdown structure to ensure the reported data are accurate and consistent. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation and plans to establish a process to verify that the management and operating (M&O) contractors are crosswalking their financial data to the appropriate NNSA work breakdown structure by September 30, 2020. As of April 2020, NNSA has hired two federal employees who will be conducting site visits to work with M&O contractors on verifying their crosswalks.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop and implement an internal process for NNSA to verify that the M&O contractors are consistently applying common cost element definitions at their sites and across the nuclear security enterprise. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation and plans to establish a process to verify that the management and operating (M&O) contractors are consistently applying common cost element definitions at their sites and across the nuclear security enterprise by September 30, 2020. As of April 2020, NNSA has hired two federal employees who will be conducting site visits to work with M&O contractors on verifying their crosswalks.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Office of Asset Management to resume monitoring the Economic Development Property program, including property provided to non-federal recipients. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update their annual personal property reporting requirements. DOE anticipates having this recommendation implemented by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Office of Asset Management to update its regulations and guidance on programs that provide property to non-federal recipients to ensure regulations are current and establish a process to regularly communicate information about non-federal recipient programs to DOE program offices. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, DOE indicated in its 180-day letter that the agency concurred with the recommendation, and will update internal policies, and provide personal property information on DOE's internal informational website known as Powerpedia. DOE anticipates implementing this recommendation by September 30, 2020. GAO will continue to monitor DOE's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to take steps to manage the three GDPs as an integrated program and follow relevant program management leading practices (developing a GDP-wide program management plan; an integrated master schedule; and a reliable, integrated, comprehensive life-cycle cost estimate.) (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office (PPPO) is in the process of developing a program management master plan, to include site-integrated master schedules and life-cycle cost estimates, for the Portsmouth and Paducah gaseous diffusion plants (GDPs). Officials stated that the plan will incorporate program management leading practices as appropriate. According to DOE officials, EM will direct PPPO to use actual collected cost and schedule information for integration of relevant lessons learned from ETTP cleanup into integrated program plans, schedules, and estimates. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to track consistent and detailed expenditure information on cleanup activities across the three GDPs. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) is assessing and identifying an appropriate mechanism for tracking expenditures for both the Portsmouth and Paducah GDP sites, using a standardized approach with an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) reporting on, at a minimum, an annual basis. According to DOE officials, PPPO is in the process of using the ETTP data as a basis of comparison for contractor estimates and assessing the potential development of cost estimating tools for independent cost estimating. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to ensure the site-specific life-cycle cost estimates for the cleanup of each of the GDPs fully incorporate best practices for cost estimation. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) has directed the Portsmouth and Paducah GDP sites to review and incorporate the practices from GAO's Cost Estimating Guide (GAO-20-195G), as appropriate, into the next revision of each site's life-cycle cost baselines. According to DOE officials, Oak Ridge is in the process of procuring a follow-on cleanup contract, which includes the scope to complete the cleanup of ETTP. According to DOE officials, given that the cleanup of the ETTP GDP is nearly complete, the baseline for the entire ETTP GDP will not be included in the life cycle cost estimate review. Officials stated the remaining scope of work for the ETTP GDP will, however, become part of the performance baseline for the next Oak Ridge cleanup contractor. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to work—in conjunction with EPA and Kentucky and Tennessee state regulators—with an independent, third-party facilitator to help resolve disagreements over cleanup priorities, cleanup remedies, and cost estimation assumptions. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) has incorporated the use of an independent facilitator on a case-by-case basis to help resolve any disagreements, in conjunction with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Kentucky and Tennessee state regulators over cleanup priorities, remedies, and cost estimation assumptions. Officials stated that most recently, the Paducah GDP site used an independent facilitator to resolve disagreements with EPA Region IV and Kentucky state regulators. According to DOE officials, in the future, EM will continue the use of an independent facilitator, as deemed appropriate. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should regularly report on the status of the D&D Fund and cleanup efforts at the three GDPs with current information that contains details on challenges in reaching agreement with regulators and a clear scope of work. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of the Secretary
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) has prepared the triennial Uranium Enrichment Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Report, providing accomplishments through fiscal year 2019 and disclosing the most recent environmental liability estimate associated with remaining challenges and scope of cleanup at the GDPs. Officials stated that the report is being circulated for approval. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should evaluate training needs for agency officials or others involved in reviewing the merits of researchers' data management plans and, if additional training is found to be warranted, develop and provide such training. (Recommendation 19)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy concurred with this recommendation and stated it would assess and develop a plan to meet the training needs of internal DOE staff and external peer reviewers of data management plans. DOE estimated these efforts would be completed by December 31, 2020. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should fully develop and implement a mechanism to ensure researcher compliance with the public access plan and associated requirements. (Recommendation 28)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy concurred with this recommendation stating that it would develop a compliance mechanism to identify researchers receiving funding from DOE financial assistance awards who are not compliant with DOE's public access plan for publications. DOE estimated these efforts would be completed by December 31, 2020. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: As the Subcommittee on Open Science moves forward, the Department of Energy co-chair, in coordination with other co-chairs and participating agencies, should take steps to fully implement leading practices that enhance and sustain collaboration. (Recommendation 34)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with GAO's November 2019 recommendation. DOE noted that, as a co-chair of the subcommittee, it is actively identifying areas of collaboration across agencies in implementing open science practices. In March 2020, the Office of Science and Technology Policy provided information on steps the subcommittee has taken to address issues associated with public access to federally funded research results, including certain areas GAO identified as presenting challenges to public access plan implementation in the November 2019 report. GAO will collect and evaluate additional information to determine the extent to which these steps incorporate leading practices for interagency collaboration GAO has identified. By taking steps to fully implement the relevant leading practices we have identified, the subcommittee and its member agencies could better marshal their collective efforts to address common public access plan implementation challenges that agency officials and stakeholders identified.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the agency fully implements each of the eight key IT workforce planning activities it did not fully implement. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, the department reported actions it had taken to fully implement the activities associated with assessing competencies and needs regularly; assessing gaps in competencies and staffing; monitoring the agency's progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps; and reporting to agency leadership on progress in addressing competency and staffing gaps. The department also reported actions it had taken to address the remaining four activities and provided estimated time frames for fully implementing them. As of August 2020, we were following up with the department to obtain supporting documentation for the activities it claimed it had fully implemented and status updates for the remaining activities.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of the Chief Financial Officer to revise DOE's PILT order to require DOE to maintain documentation of key determinants of PILT payments for each community to help ensure that payments are consistent with the agreed-upon bases of PILT payments and PILT goals. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE convened a working group to identify high-level options for the PILT program and recommend appropriate changes to DOE leadership. According to DOE officials, the working group will consider GAO's findings and recommendations.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of the Chief Financial Officer to revise DOE's PILT order to require DOE site offices to review key determinants of PILT payments in communities' PILT invoices for accuracy and consistency with the agreed-upon bases of PILT payments and PILT goals and for DOE headquarters to document its review and validation of site office determinations. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE convened a working group to identify high-level options for the PILT program and recommend appropriate changes to DOE leadership. According to DOE officials, the working group will consider GAO's findings and recommendations.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of the Chief Financial Officer to revise DOE's PILT order to provide additional guidance on how communities should calculate their payment requests for their PILT invoices. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE convened a working group to identify high-level options for the PILT program and recommend appropriate changes to DOE leadership. According to DOE officials, the working group will consider GAO's findings and recommendations.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should report information on all professional SSCs to which funds were obligated during the fiscal year in its annual congressional budget justification materials. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred with our recommendation and agreed to update its methodology for the fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials in an effort to ensure that contracts are counted accurately. Based on our review of the contracts listed in the budget justification materials, NNSA inappropriately excluded six contracts from its fiscal year 2021 congressional budget justification reporting. GAO is following up with NNSA officials to determine why these contracts were excluded.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should collect and report all required data regarding the number of FTE contractor personnel employed under an SSC for more than 2 years. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred in principle with the recommendation and planned to meet with congressional staff to discuss ways to further enhance the reported data before the 2021 budget materials were prepared. NNSA provided additional information in its fiscal year 2021 budget justification explaining that it did not have access to the information needed to report information to report required data regarding the number of FTE contractor personnel employed under an support service contract for more than 2 years. We will continue to follow-up on NNSA's progress in collecting and reporting the required data.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should report in NNSA's annual congressional budget justification materials the program appropriations account—Weapons Activities or Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation—used to fund each SSC and total the amounts obligated by appropriations account. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA concurred with the recommendation and included in the fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials additional information on the fund value and description in the table of support service contracts. However, NNSA did not total the amounts for each appropriation account. As a result, information on the total amounts of each appropriation account is not as transparent as it could be to assist Congress for planning purposes. GAO is following up with agency officials to identify any additional actions planned to close the recommendation.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should take steps to ensure that contracting officers document—in the required determination form or elsewhere in the contract file—information on the steps that the contracting officers plan to take to oversee SSCs that NNSA has determined to be at high risk of including inherently governmental functions. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of this report, NNSA stated that it considers the recommendation closed based on processes already in place, as well as the complementary activities discussed in response to our sixth recommendation. We continue to believe that documenting planned oversight activities in the contract files is important to ensure that planned oversight is consistent throughout the duration of the contract. We will continue to monitor NNSA's implementation of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Associate Administrator for Acquisition and Project Management should develop a process to verify that contracting officers are carrying out the steps identified to oversee contracts at risk of including inherently governmental functions throughout the term of the contract. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NNSA generally agreed with the recommendation. NNSA stated that, among other things, it will review and revise, as necessary, the designation letters for contractor officers' representatives to ensure they clearly address the expectations for daily operational awareness and monitoring for risks associated with high-risk contracts, including those involving activities closely associated with inherently governmental functions. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management to revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to establish how the EM program and DOE sites should apply the essential elements of a risk-informed decision-making framework into their current decision-making requirements and guidance. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2020, DOE officials told us that its Office of Environmental Management (EM) had recently reinvigorated efforts to develop a comprehensive program-wide strategy to address risks in a consistent manner to align cleanup plans and activities with programmatic priorities and available budgets. According to DOE officials, EM plans to revise and replace its 2017 Cleanup Policy with a Cleanup Project Management Protocol and and EM Cleanup Program Management Policy. Officials stated that the Cleanup Program Management Policy will establish an approach for the EM program and DOE sites to apply the essential elements of risk-informed decision-making framework. DOE officials estimated that this effort would be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management, in the development of a program management plan, to incorporate essential elements of risk-informed decision-making. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2020, DOE officials told us that DOE's Office of Environmental Management (EM) is developing a new Cleanup Program Management Policy that will incorporate the essential elements of risk-informed decision-making, as appropriate, into EM program management policy. DOE officials estimated that this effort will be completed by December 31, 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should issue a progress report on the department's environmental justice efforts each year. (Recommendation 15)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, Department of Energy officials stated that they had issued progress reports for fiscal years 2017 and 2018 and would issue progress reports annually after this point. We will review the department's reports in upcoming years to determine that it has carried out this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop cost estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations that meet best practices for being comprehensive (e.g., account for all costs). (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided in April 2020, DOE said that it had taken steps to ensure the cost estimates will meet best practices for being comprehensive (e.g., account for all costs) as part of contract negotiations for the cleanup project. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop schedule estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations that meet best practices for being well-constructed. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that in negotiating the Idaho Cleanup Project contract it had taken steps to ensure the schedule estimates for the IWTU reengineering project and the SBW treatment operations will meet best practices for being well constructed. Further, DOE stated that the remaining baseline scope and schedule estimate received an external review by its contractor's parent corporation and DOE's Office of Environmental Management to ensure that the schedule meets best practices for being well-constructed. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to follow best practices for ensuring the reliability for the IWTU reengineering project's earned value management system. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that cost and performance data for the IWTU is being tracked against the cost and schedule baselines incorporated in the core contract for the Idaho Cleanup Project, and that the data meets best practices for reliability. GAO has requested additional information from DOE and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop a strategy, including a timeline, for implementing the actions required to achieve its preferred disposal pathway, or an alternative, for the SBW. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that EM will assess the range of potential strategies and pathways for disposal of the treated SBW. Once this effort is completed, GAO will review EM's strategy and timeline for achieving its preferred disposal pathway, or an alternative, and update the status of this recommendation accordingly.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of EM to develop a strategy, including a timeline, to identify and develop a treatment approach for the disposal of the calcine waste to ensure that EM meets the milestone for completing the treatment of this waste by the target date of December 31, 2035. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an update provided by DOE in April 2020, DOE said that DOE's Idaho Operations Office is in the process of chartering a team of subject matter experts to update an analysis of alternatives for calcine treatment and disposal. DOE said that this evaluation will be completed by September 30, 2020. GAO will request additional information from DOE on this analysis once completed and will update the status of this recommendation after it has received and analyzed this information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DHS and other relevant stakeholders, should develop a plan aimed at implementing the federal cybersecurity strategy for the electric grid and ensure that the plan addresses the key characteristics of a national strategy, including a full assessment of cybersecurity risks to the grid. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. In its response to our report, DOE stated that it was working through an interagency process to develop a National Cyber Strategy Implementation Plan that will consider DOE's Multiyear Plan for Energy Sector Cybersecurity. To fully address our recommendation, DOE should coordinate with DHS and other relevant stakeholders to develop a plan for implementing the federal cybersecurity strategy for the electric grid and ensure that the plan addresses the key characteristics of a national strategy.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with the Administrator of NNSA, should formally communicate to the relevant congressional committees concerns about, and suggested changes to, the enhanced procurement authority in a timely manner. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with the recommendation. NNSA officials said they submitted an assessment that includes information on suggested changes to the authority to the congressional committees in March 2020. We requested a copy of the assessment and will update the status of this recommendation after we receive and review it.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should develop a cybersecurity risk management strategy that includes the key elements identified in this report. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Energy concurred with this recommendation. As of January 2020, the department stated that it was developing a department-wide risk management plan, to include a risk management strategy, and this would be completed by May 31, 2020. Once the department has provided evidence of these actions, we plan to verify whether implementation has occurred.

Recommendation: NNSA's Energetic Materials Enterprise Manager and relevant NNSA officials and contractor representatives at NNSA sites should take steps to improve the accuracy of FIMS data related to NNSA's infrastructure supporting explosives activities. These steps should include reviewing and updating information about associations of assets with primary and secondary explosives missions; ensuring that those who provide asset information to FIMS administrators understand the data they need to provide; and clarifying how to accurately enter information in FIMS for explosives assets that are not buildings. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of July 2020, we are currently reviewing agency information and plan to reach out as needed for additional information for this recommendation.

Recommendation: NNSA's Energetic Materials Enterprise Manager, in consultation with members of NNSA's Energetics Coordinating Committee, should, as the agency revises its Defense Programs Strategic Plan for Energetic Materials, include discussion of identified challenges related to explosives activities, such as data quality, workforce levels, and safety as well as any actions to address them, as appropriate, or document the rationale for why identified challenges were not included. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: Based on trade press reports, NNSA appears to be taking several actions that, collectively, may serve to close this recommendation as implemented. As of July 2020, we are awaiting information from agency officials and will update the status of this recommendation when the information is received.

Recommendation: NNSA's Energetic Materials Enterprise Manager, in consultation with members of NNSA's Energetics Coordinating Committee, should, as the agency revises its Defense Programs Strategic Plan for Energetic Materials, include fully developed elements of an effective strategic plan, such as a clearly identified mission statement and performance goals that are quantifiable, set time frames for completion, and list responsible parties to carry out specific activities for all strategic goals. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: Based on trade press reports, NNSA appears to be making progress implementing this recommendation. As of July 2020, we have requested additional information from agency officials and will update the recommendation status when the information is received.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of DOE's Manufacturing USA institutes to develop criteria to evaluate whether DOE-sponsored institutes can sustain their operations without additional federal financial assistance after their initial agreements. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with this recommendation according to its response to our report. In September 2019, DOE stated that it will direct the Directors of DOE-sponsored institutes to collectively work toward updating institute sustainability plans and activities and collaboratively develop criteria and metrics to assess the institutes' progress toward financial sustainability. After development of the metrics, DOE will track as appropriate. As of March 2020, DOE reported agreement with its institutes on an initial set of criteria and metrics to assess progress toward financial sustainability. We will update this recommendation as we collect more information about these efforts.

Recommendation: The Senior Procurement Executive for the Department of Energy should review the contracts we identified as being awarded to contractors that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR § 52.209-5. Specifically, the Senior Procurement Executive should determine whether each contract value was expected to exceed the simplified acquisition threshold when the solicitation was issued and, if so, (1) determine the reasons controls to identify and notify the SDO of these contractors before contract award did not operate effectively and (2) design or modify controls to help ensure compliance with applicable regulations. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (DOE) provided us information on their review of the contracts that reported qualifying federal tax debt under FAR ? 52.209-5. We are assessing the DOE's review of these contracts and will provide updated information when we confirm whether the agency's review, and any subsequent actions stemming from its review, are consistent with our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should take action to meet the data center closure targets established under DCOI by OMB. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In comments on our report, the Department of Energy (Energy) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established a new data center closure target. The department subsequently reported meeting its closure target for fiscal year 2019. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor Energy's progress in implementing this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should take action to meet the data center optimization metric targets established under DCOI by OMB. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) agreed with our recommendation and began taking action to implement it. After the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the updated Data Center Optimization Initiative policy in June 2019, the department established new data center optimization targets. The department subsequently reported meeting its targets for the virtualization, advanced energy metering, and server utilization metrics. However, given the short time to evaluate implementation efforts between when OMB released the updated policy in June 2019 and the end of fiscal year 2019, we will continue to monitor Energy's efforts to implement this recommendation through fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the CIO of Energy updates the agency's guidance on assessing IT investments for suitability for cloud computing services to include a requirement to assess new acquisitions for these services. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would update its IT budget guidance to address our recommendation. In February 2020, Energy officials provided a portion of a guidance document, but it did not include language that addressed our recommendation. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the CIO of Energy completes an assessment of all IT investments for suitability for migration to a cloud computing service, in accordance with OMB guidance. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the department would update its IT budget guidance to address our recommendation. In February 2020, Energy officials provided a portion of a guidance document, but it did not include language on assessing investments for cloud services. In addition, as of May 2020, based on our review of data on the IT Dashboard, Energy has not yet completed an assessment of 107 investments for these services. We will continue to monitor Energy's progress with this effort.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the CIO of Energy establishes a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings and cost avoidances from the migration and deployment of cloud services. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and stated that the CIO would establish a mechanism to address our recommendation. In February 2020, Energy officials reported that they had identified a number of cloud investments with cost savings as part of the integrated data call required by OMB. However, the department still needs to establish a consistent and repeatable mechanism to track savings for all IT investments. We will continue to monitor Energy's progress with this effort.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should take action to educate and communicate the agency's scientific integrity polices to staff through, for example, regular training. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, DOE provided an update on the status of this recommendation. In that update, DOE said the scientific integrity official will be responsible for leading and coordinating with other elements of the Department, in the development of measures to educate and communicate DOE's scientific integrity policies to staff.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should establish steps and a time frame for designating a scientific integrity official to oversee the department's scientific integrity activities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, DOE provided an update on the status of this recommendation. In that update, DOE said that it was still in the process of identifying an individual to serve as a scientific integrity official.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should develop mechanisms to regularly monitor and evaluate implementation of the department's scientific integrity policy, including mechanisms to remediate identified deficiencies and make improvements where necessary. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, DOE provided an update on the status of this recommendation. In that update, DOE stated that the Department's scientific integrity official will have the responsibility to lead and coordinate with other elements of the Department in developing procedures to monitor and evaluate the implementation of DOE's scientific integrity policy, including mechanisms to remediate identified deficiencies and make improvements where necessary.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should develop documented procedures for identifying and addressing alleged violations of its scientific integrity policy. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In July 2020, DOE provided an update on the status of this recommendation. In that update, DOE stated that the department's scientific integrity official will be responsible for leading and coordinating with other elements of the Department in developing procedures for identifying and addressing alleged violations of DOE's scientific integrity policy.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should develop a documented policy or clarify existing policy to implement the statutory requirement to consult with Alaska Native Corporations (ANC) on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order 13175. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, the Department of Energy plans to clarify and consolidate its consultation policies and practices for consultation with Alaska Native Corporations by June 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should document in the agency's tribal consultation policy how agency officials are to communicate with tribes about how tribal input from consultation was considered in agency decisions on infrastructure projects. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, the Department of Energy indicated that it plans to document policies for communicating about how input from tribal consultation was considered in agency decisions on infrastructure projects by June 2021.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should clearly define—in guidance or other documents—which subcontracts should be audited, how an audit is defined, and how to meet subcontract audit requirements if Defense Contract Audit Agency is unable to conduct the audit.(Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report, DOE partially concurred with the recommendation, but stated that there is no government-wide requirement that defines an audit or prescribes the auditing of subcontracts. According to officials, DOE reviewed existing regulations, guidance, and contract provisions on audit requirements and determined that a need exists for additional guidance or contract provisions on audits for major contracts. As of June 2020, DOE was working with the Civilian Agency Acquisition Council to recommend a government-wide requirement to define audit and prescribe when to obtain audits of subcontracts. Additionally, DOE included in its Acquisition Guide information on audit options when the Defense Contract Audit Agency is unable to conduct an audit.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should require local officials to independently review subcontractor ownership information as part of DOE consent reviews and assess potential conflicts of interest to ensure contractors are mitigating them. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE did not concur with our recommendation; instead, they plan to issue guidance emphasizing the importance of contracting officers reviewing contractors' disclosing and dealing with issues created by close working relationships, conflicts of interest, or ownership affiliations between prime and subcontractor. We have identified complex relationships among DOE contractors and subcontractors that were not documented by DOE, as well as incidents involving subcontractors related to conflicts of interest that were not disclosed to DOE. We noted that DOE officials--including those in local offices--have access to several databases and other sources of information that would allow them to independently verify ownership information that could allow the local offices to identify potential conflicts of interest that were not disclosed. In July 2020, DOE issued guidance summarizing and reiterating existing regulations, policy and procedures that require DOE contracting officers to perform independent analyses when reviewing subcontract consent packages, contractor purchasing systems, and potential organizational conflicts of interest. However, this is the same as previous guidance and it does not include direction to review subcontractor ownership information.

Recommendation: The Director of the DOE Office of Acquisition Management should require contracting officers to include assessments of the contractors' management of subcontractors as part of annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans, as appropriate. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with the recommendation and agreed to review existing guidance and determine if additional guidance is needed to conduct an assessment of the contractors' management of subcontractors in annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans. As of June 2020, DOE officials said they have reviewed existing federal and departmental policies, procedures, and available tools and determined sufficient guidance exists for contracting officers to make informed decisions on whether to include contractor management of subcontractors in annual Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans based on the characteristics, circumstances, and requirements of a specific contract. DOE's Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan template provides a subcontractor management evaluation factor for use by contracting officers who have determined it is appropriate for their contracts. Although we recognize the value in deferring to contracting officers to determine whether the factor is appropriate based on the characteristics, circumstances, and requirements of the contract, we continue to believe that DOE should place additional emphasis on the contractors' oversight of subcontracts by assessing the contractors on this factor.

Recommendation: The Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration should develop and document clear procedures for implementing NAP-4C, specifying the process for collecting contractor performance information and describing how officials are to ensure this information can be traced to rating determinations. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) concurred with the recommendation. In February 2020, NNSA issued its fiscal year 2020 Corporate Performance Evaluation Process Annual Implementation Guidance. This guidance included a new section specifying the process for collecting contractor performance information and further details regarding the preparation of interim feedback reports and final performance evaluation reports. However, the guidance is unclear regarding how this information can be traced to rating determinations. In order to provide more transparency and ensure this traceability, NNSA guidance and the Performance Evaluation Reports themselves should more clearly link how collected performance information tracks to rating determinations.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) partially concurred with the recommendation. As of April 2020, EERE officials stated that cost performance feedback was included in the 2019 final performance evaluation for the EERE Management and Operating contractor. EERE officials also stated that they had incorporated cost performance evaluation criteria into the fiscal year 2020 Performance Evaluation Measurement Plan (PEMP) for NREL. EERE officials noted that these actions ensure cost performance will be included as part of the ongoing contractor evaluation process. We have requested documentation of the new PEMP and performance evaluation report and, in order to ensure cost performance evaluation criteria are included in the future, EERE should update its policy to require quality information on cost performance going forward.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Environmental Management should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Environmental Management
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Environmental Management (EM) concurred with the recommendation. As of April 2020, EM officials stated that they will include the requirement for quality information on cost performance in EM's Cleanup Project Management Policy. According to officials, EM is working on this policy, along with an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy that they expect to complete by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Fossil Energy should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Fossil Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) concurred with the recommendation. As of April 2020, FE officials stated that they had revised and executed the Performance Evaluation and Measurements Plan (PEMP), for the current Management and Operating contract to add a new PEMP measure that addresses monitoring cost growth, additional activities in internal audit, and data quality that addresses our recommendation. We have requested documentation of the PEMP showing the new measures and an updated policy requiring inclusion of quality information on cost performance in Performance Evaulation Reports. Upon receiving those, we will review to determine if it addresses our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) concurred with the recommendation. In February 2020, NNSA issued its fiscal year 2020 Corporate Performance Evaluation Process Annual Implementation Guidance. This guidance provides instructions regarding the evaluation of cost performance, including examples of the types of cost information that should be collected and how cost data should be analyzed and described. However, the guidance's template for Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plans does not include any explicit cost performance Objectives or Key Outcomes and it is unclear how the cost performance information discussed in the guidance would enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. In order to provide quality cost information that does enable such an overall assessment, NNSA should clarify its guidance regarding cost performance information and how this information links to overall Management and Operating contractor performance.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary for the Office of Nuclear Energy should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Nuclear Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) partially concurred with the recommendation. As of May 2020, NE officials stated that they will include criteria for "day-to-day" cost performance in the annual Performance Evaluation Measurement Plan (PEMP) for fiscal year 2020. NE's evaluation of the contractor's performance against those criteria will be included in the year-end performance reports of its Management and Operating contractor beginning in fiscal year 2020. NE officials stated that modifying the fiscal year 2020 PEMP with added cost criteria, usually done in April, has been delayed due to COVID-19 and that they expect to complete the modification by the end of May 2020. Once the cost criteria are included and evaluated in the Performance Evaluation Report, we will review to determine if it addresses our recommendation. In addition to changes to the fiscal year 2020 report, NE should update its policy to require such criteria for evaluating contractor cost performance going forward.

Recommendation: The Director of the Office of Science should update its policy to require that Performance Evaluation Reports include quality information on cost performance to enable an overall assessment of Management and Operating contractor cost performance. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Energy: Office of Science
Status: Open

Comments: The Office of Science (SC) partially concurred with the recommendation. In commenting on our report in August 2019, DOE stated that by focusing on the annual Performance Evaluation Reports (PER), our report does not capture the cost performance reviews conducted in day-to-day contract oversight, the annual laboratory planning process, and contract extend/compete decisions. In its comments, DOE stated that since SC conducts cost performance reviews in normal operations and at the year-end annual evaluation process, adequate information is available to assess whether the contractor cost performance is acceptable to the department. As of April 2020, SC had not updated these comments. In the report, we note that SC conducts some cost performance evaluation activities outside of the annual performance evaluation process, although we did not assess these efforts. While there may be adequate information available, SC does not commonly document this information or assessments from such activities in the PERs. We continue to believe that the PERs are important sources of information for contract management--particularly for acquisition decisions and oversight of spending on cost-reimbursement contracts--and that action is needed to improve these formal records of contractor performance. By not including quality information on overall cost performance and assessments in PERs, SC is missing a valuable opportunity to better document contractors' cost performance, improve acquisition decision-making, and strengthen oversight of billions of dollars in contracting. We continue to believe that it is important for SC to implement the recommendation and that by doing so, the office would have better assurance that Management and Operating contractor performance evaluations fully address required elements.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Project Management and the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to work together to establish requirements for classifying cleanup work as capital asset projects or operations activities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that DOE developed a draft Cleanup Project Management Policy to clarify the expectations for EM's management of discrete work, such as operations activities that could be considered projects. In February 2020, EM officials stated that they are addressing this recommendation in two steps. First, EM is working with DOE's Office of Project Management to draft a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) to address the Decommissioning and Deactivation (D&D) phase of cleanup. This policy will become an appendix in DOE's Order 413.3B. EM officials further stated that EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy that would classify the remaining types of activities not covered by the Cleanup Project Management Policy, including what EM currently classifies as operations activities. EM plans to implement this policy by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Project Management and the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to work together to asses EM's ongoing operations activities to determine if they should be reclassified as capital asset projects based on the newly established requirements. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that DOE developed a draft Cleanup Project Management Policy to clarify the expectations for EM's management of discrete work, such as operations activities that could be considered projects. In February 2020, EM officials stated that they are addressing this recommendation in two steps. First, EM is working with DOE's Office of Project Management to draft a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) to address the Decommissioning and Deactivation (D&D) phase of cleanup. This policy will become an appendix in DOE's Order 413.3B. EM officials further stated that EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy that would classify the remaining types of activities not covered by the Cleanup Project Management Policy, including what EM currently classifies as operations activities. EM plans to implement this policy by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that EM intends to replace its current EM Cleanup Policy with two separate project and program management policies that will incorporate leading practices related to scope, cost, and schedule, and independent reviews, as appropriate. In February 2020, EM officials stated that EM is working on a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) that will cover the Decommissioning and Deactivation (D&D) phase of cleanup. EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy (expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2020), which will supersede EM's current cleanup policy and include leading program management practices-and possibly also project management practices-related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to review and revise EM's 2017 cleanup policy to include project management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that EM intends to replace its current EM Cleanup Policy with two separate project and program management policies that will incorporate leading practices related to scope, cost, and schedule, and independent reviews, as appropriate. In February 2020, EM officials stated that EM is working on a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) that will cover the Decommissioning and Deactivation (D&D) phase of cleanup. EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy (expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2020), which will supersede EM's current cleanup policy and include leading program management practices-and possibly also project management practices-related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to update its cleanup policy to require that earned value management (EVM) systems be maintained and used in a way that follows EVM best practices. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that EM intends to replace its current EM Cleanup Policy with two separate project and program management policies that will incorporate earned value management best practices, as appropriate. In February 2020, EM officials stated that EM's forthcoming Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in spring 2020) will require capital asset projects covered under the policy to use earned value management (EVM) systems that have been independently certified, which is an EVM best practice. However, EM officials told us that this policy will not require operations activities to follow EVM best practices. EM officials stated that EM is also considering including this requirement in its forthcoming Cleanup Program Management Policy (expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2020). In addition, EM officials told is that EM plans to require future end-state contracts to use EVM systems that have either been certified by the DOE Office of Project Management or been subject to a "compliance review" conducted by EM itself, depending on the dollar value of the contract.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to develop a policy to ensure that work is categorized as level of effort only in appropriate, specified circumstances, such as when work is not measurable or when measurement is impractical. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that EM intends to include requirements related to the categorization of level of effort work in the project and program management policies EM is developing.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary of the Office of Environmental Management to integrate EVM data into EM's performance metrics for operations activities. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE partially concurred with this recommendation. In August 2019, in a letter to GAO on how EM will address our recommendation, the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management to the Under Secretary for Science stated that DOE is in the process of developing a Cleanup Program Management Policy that will, among other things, incorporate changes relative to the integration of EVM data into performance metrics as appropriate. As of February 2020, EM officials told us that the new policy is expected to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2020. In February 2020, EM officials stated that EM plans to begin a new performance review process for operations activities that will include EVM-based performance metrics as part of annual reporting to the Assistant Secretary. The new process is expected to begin in October 2020, but EM officials have not determined whether this will be a requirement included in EM's forthcoming Cleanup Program Management Policy.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should update EM's policies and procedures to establish a standard definition of milestones and specify requirements for both including and updating information on milestones across the complex. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation, but as of March 2020, DOE has not fully implemented this recommendation. DOE officials told us that they established an Integrated Project Team (IPT) to review GAO's recommendation. The IPT recommended that DOE continue to use DOE's Integrated Planning, Accountability and Budgeting System (IPABS) for tracking compliance with milestones, accompanied by a new policy providing direction to the field to use IPABS, a new data dictionary for the use of IPABS, guidance, and training. Using recommendations from the IPT, DOE has drafted policy and guidance documents for tracking compliance and is in the process of testing the draft policy using a pilot site. DOE officials told us that they plan to update the schedule for completing the final policy and guidance by September 30, 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should track original milestone dates as well as changes to its cleanup milestones. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation, but as of March 2020, DOE has not fully implemented the recommendation. DOE officials told us they have completed an options analysis to identify the costs and benefits of conducting root cause analyses of historical milestone changes. DOE officials said they recognized a benefit to a developing a more complete root cause analysis and considered whether an analysis of historical milestone changes could provide best practices in negotiating milestone changes. DOE said they have initiated a pilot project with a major DOE site to determine the benefit of additional analyses and that the analysis of historical milestone changes will be completed by December 2020.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should comply with the requirements in the National Defense Authorization Act by reporting annually to Congress on the status of its cleanup milestones and including a complete list of cleanup milestones for all sites required by the act. The annual reports should also include, for each milestone, the original date along with the currently negotiated date. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation, but as of March 2020, DOE has not fully implemented the recommendation. DOE officials told us that DOE completed an options analysis to identify the costs and benefits of conducting root cause analyses of historical milestone changes. DOE officials added that they will identify what historical analyses are appropriate to conduct based on value to the government. According to DOE officials, the results of this analysis are being incorporated into a pilot project, and they plan to complete a final reporting methodology by the end of that pilot project.. DOE officials noted that they have analyzed options for reporting on regulatory compliance and the results will be part of DOE policy and guidance to be issued by June 2021.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of DOE's Office of Environmental Management should conduct root cause analyses of missed or postponed milestones. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation, but as of March 2020, DOE has not fully implemented the recommendation. DOE officials told us that they established an Integrated Project Team (IPT) to review GAO's recommendation. DOE officials told us that the IPT identified root causes for missed or delayed milestones, which according to DOE officials, will be used in a pilot test of the draft policy. DOE officials told us that they plan to develop an appropriate list of root causes after the pilot project is completed, and officials noted that they plan to revisit the list of root causes on a recurring basis to verify that the options are still valid. According to DOE officials, DOE plans to issue a final policy and guidance, which will include the list of root causes that sites will input into the tracking system (the Integrated Planning, Accountability and Budgeting System, or IPABS) when milestones are modified or cancelled. DOE plans to issue this guidance no later than June 30, 2021.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should collect and document requirements to define project scope and meet project objectives. These requirements should be updated periodically throughout the life of the project. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, NNSA provided a project plan for tasks to be completed for common financial reporting through 2021. However, NNSA has not developed requirements that define specific or detailed requirements for successful implementation of common financial reporting, such as the types of information that program managers need.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop a detailed project schedule. The detailed schedule should be documented as part of the annual report to Congress required in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, NNSA established a detailed project schedule for the common financial reporting effort through fiscal year 2021. However, NNSA should communicate this detailed project schedule for the effort to Congress on an annual basis.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop a formal process to identify risks, document those risks, and plan how to minimize risk exposure. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2020, NNSA developed a risk management plan for common financial reporting which established a framework for identifying and managing risks. GAO will continue to monitor NNSA's efforts to implement the plan, including how NNSA identifies and documents risks and mitigates risk exposure using its management plan.

Recommendation: The Program Director for Financial Integration should develop an approach to effectively engage with all project stakeholders that incorporates their expectations into project decisions. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: As of September 2020, NNSA has continued to engage on a regular basis with its M&O contractors. However, similar efforts have not continued with stakeholders of the program offices.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management to develop a program-wide strategy that outlines how DOE will direct available resources to address human health and environmental risks across and within sites. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of February 2020, DOE's Office of Environmental Management has not developed a program-wide strategy that addresses this recommendation. DOE officials said they are "developing a strategic options analysis to evaluate the current approaches to cleanup and other recently identified opportunities across the complex that could reduce risk and life-cycle costs through more efficient and innovative approaches." According to DOE officials, the analysis will consider risk-based approaches across sites, with the goal of reducing human health and environmental risks and the associated environmental liability.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management to submit in EM's annually required Future-Years Defense Environmental Management Plan all mandated requirements, as well as information on annual growth in environmental liability estimates by site, the key factors causing that growth, and an explanation of significant differences between environmental liability estimates and life cycle cost estimates. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, DOE's Office of Environmental Management has not implemented this recommendation. DOE officials stated that DOE will coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget on the preparation of the Future-Years Defense Environmental Management Plan, or other reporting, to supplement Congressional Budget documentation. Officials also stated that EM is currently undertaking an analysis of EM's environmental liability growth.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's Office of Environmental Management to disclose the funding EM needs to meet all of its schedule milestones called for in compliance agreements in, for example, supplemental reports or the annual Future-Years Defense Environmental Management Plan. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of February 2020, DOE's Office of Environmental Management has not implemented this recommendation. DOE officials stated that DOE will coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget to include such information in the Future-Years Defense Environmental Management Plan, or another appropriate report.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements that clearly define how and where project management lessons learned for capital asset projects should be documented and saved to make them readily accessible across the department. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, continues to work on developing a policy memorandum in advance of revising DOE Order 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, to identify the project management lessons learned and outline the kinds of information the repository will collect. We will monitor DOE's effort and evaluate the action once it is complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements for sharing project management lessons learned for capital asset projects from the beginning of a project (i.e., prior to the start of construction at CD-3) routinely and in a timely manner to improve DOE's ability to identify and evaluate problematic practices and positive experiences. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, continues to work on developing a policy memorandum in advance of revising DOE Order 413.3B, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, to have those conducting peer reviews elicit project management lessons learned with department-wide applicability and submit any discerned, as well as replace the order's definition of project management lessons learned with a standard industry definition. We will monitor DOE's efforts and evaluate the actions once they are complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in coordination with DOE's Office of Project Management and NNSA's Office of Acquisition and Project Management, should develop requirements for evaluating the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to project management problems for capital asset projects, with a focus on those lessons that necessitate the need for department-wide improvements. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation and as of July 2020, plans to revise the Project Management Risk Committee charter by assigning it the responsibility to qualitatively evaluate the effectiveness of corrective actions taken in response to project management lessons learned from projects with a total project cost greater than $750 million having department-wide implications. This action, however, may not fully address the recommendation, in part because there may be some lessons learned with applicability department-wide from projects that do not meet this cost threshold. We will monitor DOE's effort and evaluate the action once it is complete.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, address gaps in the department's FITARA plans by developing and implementing policies and procedures that establish department-wide policy for the level of detail of planned expenditure reporting to the CIO for all transactions that include IT resources. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided documentation regarding its IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not yet developed procedures that explicitly require that all transactions with an IT component be included in the expenditure reporting to the CIO. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, address gaps in the department's FITARA plans by developing and implementing policies and procedures that include the CIO in the planning and budgeting stages for all programs that are fully or partially supported with IT resources. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided documentation regarding its IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not yet documented procedures for ensuring the CIO is included in budget decisions for all programs with IT resources, including those within NNSA and the national laboratories. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, address gaps in the department's FITARA plans by developing and implementing policies and procedures that include the CIO as a member of governance boards that inform decisions regarding all IT resources, including component-level boards. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided charters that included the CIO as a member of department-level governance boards that inform IT decisions. However, DOE has not provided charters that include the CIO as a member of component-level IT governance boards. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, address gaps in the department's FITARA plans by developing and implementing policies and procedures that document the processes by which program leadership works with the CIO to plan an overall portfolio of IT resources. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided IT governance board and budget procedures. However, DOE has not documented procedures by which the CIO is to work with program leadership in planning IT resources for all programs, including those within NNSA and the national laboratories. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, address gaps in the department's FITARA plans by developing and implementing policies and procedures that document the process for the CIO's review and approval of the major IT investments portion of the budget request. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The department has provided IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not documented procedures by which the CIO is to review and approve all major IT investments, including those within NNSA and the national laboratories. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, address gaps in the department's FITARA plans by developing and implementing policies and procedures that document the CIO's role in reviewing IT resources that are to support major program objectives and significant increases and decreases in IT resources. (Recommendation 6)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not documented procedures for the CIO's review of IT resources that are to support major program objectives and significant increases and decreases in IT resources for department and component agency budget requests. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, address gaps in the department's FITARA plans by developing and implementing policies and procedures that document the steps the CIO is to take to ensure whether the IT portfolio includes appropriate estimates of all IT resources included in the budget request. (Recommendation 7)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. The department has provided IT budget procedures. However, DOE has not developed procedures for documenting steps the CIO is to take to ensure that the IT portfolio includes appropriate estimates of all IT resources. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, to take steps to ensure that the actions taken to comply with OMB's common baseline for implementing FITARA on individual investments are adequately documented. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, establish quality assurance processes--such as data quality checks, reviews of estimation methods, linkages between the IT portfolio and procurement system data, and linkages between the IT portfolio and financial system data--for ensuring the annual IT budget is informed by complete and reliable information on anticipated government labor, contract, and other relevant IT expenditures. (Recommendation 9)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation and is planning to take steps towards implementing it. Specifically, DOE plans to implement the Technology Business Management Framework by December 2021. Additionally, the department is coordinating internally to update its financial and procurement systems to better identify IT spending. DOE anticipates that its updates will allow the agency to compare actual IT spending against estimates in the portfolio. We will continue to monitor the department's progress in implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, develop and implement policies and procedures that establish agency-wide policy for the level of detail with which planned expenditures for all transactions that include IT resources are to be reported to the CIO. (Recommendation 10)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, develop and implement policies and procedures that include the CIO in the planning and budgeting stages for all programs that are fully or partially supported with IT resources. (Recommendation 11)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, develop and implement policies and procedures that include the CIO as a member of governance boards that inform decisions regarding all IT resources. (Recommendation 12)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, develop and implement policies and procedures that document the process for the CIO's review and approval of the major IT investments portion of the budget request. (Recommendation 13)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should ensure that the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, develop and implement policies and procedures that document the CIO's role in reviewing IT resources that are to support major program objectives and significant increases and decreases in IT resources. (Recommendation 14)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should direct the Office of the CIO and other offices, as appropriate, to take steps to ensure that the actions taken to comply with OMB's common baseline for implementing FITARA on individual investments are adequately documented. (Recommendation 15)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation and plans to develop relevant policies and procedures by June 2020. We will continue to monitor the agency's progress towards implementing our recommendation.

Recommendation: As the QIS Subcommittee moves forward, the Department of Energy co-chair, in coordination with other co-chairs and participating agency officials, should take steps to fully implement leading practices that enhance and sustain collaboration. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy agreed with GAO's September 2018 recommendation and, as of January 2020, had taken steps to work with the other co-chairs of the National Science and Technology Council's Quantum Information Science (QIS) Subcommittee to begin implementing it. The QIS Subcommittee, created pursuant to the National Quantum Initiative Act, enacted in 2018, continues to be led by four co-chairs from the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation (NSF), and OSTP. The law requires, among other things, that the QIS Subcommittee develop a 5-year Strategic Plan by December 21, 2019. In January 2020, an NSF official and OSTP staff reported that a draft strategic plan was under review. According to the NSF official, the strategic plan will include an assessment of actions the agencies are taking in support of QIS, and, in particular, the degree to which the agencies have developed mechanisms that enhance and sustain collaboration. The official said the draft plan will be submitted to the National Quantum Initiative Advisory Committee, which conducts independent assessments of and advises the President and QIS Subcommittee on matters related to the National Quantum Initiative. The NSF official reported that the membership of the Advisory Committee will be announced in the spring 2020 timeframe, at which time it will begin its review of the draft strategic plan. In addition to the development of a strategic plan, the National Quantum Initiative Act called for the establishment of a National Quantum Coordination Office to support the QIS Subcommittee, which OSTP formed in March 2019. Following this, in Oct. 2019 the QIS Subcommittee created three interagency working groups: (1) the science working group is working to coordinate the scientific and technical aspects of programs; (2) the workforce, infrastructure, and industry working group is working to identify workforce and technology needs; and (3) the end-user group is working to connect the nation's research and development community, including academics and industry players, to potential early adopters in the federal government. Taking this action will help to enhance and strengthen interagency collaboration and could help ensure that agencies effectively marshal their efforts to maintain U.S. competitiveness in quantum computing. When the strategic plan is finalized and we confirm what additional actions the QIS Subcommittee has taken to fully implement leading practices that enhance and sustain collaboration, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should ensure that the department's IT management policies address the role of the CIO for key responsibilities in the five areas we identified. (Recommendation 8)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The department planned to complete several steps by the end of 2019. When we confirm these actions, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: OAPM should monitor how field offices currently manage older, existing Management and Operating contract documents and use the results to improve its process for accessing such documents. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA agreed with this recommendation. Per NNSA, as of October 2018, it was developing a plan and schedule for implementing Procurement Management Reviews (PMRs), which will include monitoring how NNSA field offices manage older management and operating contract documents and use the results to improve access to such documents. As of April 2020, we will continue to monitor how NNSA carries out its oversight of field offices contract document management practices.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should evaluate the level of preparedness for cybersecurity personnel not currently holding certifications to take certification exams and report this information to Congress. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: Department of Energy (DOE) officials concurred with our recommendation and planned to evaluate the level of preparedness for cybersecurity personnel not currently holding certifications to take certification exams using the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) certification mapping that is due for release in November 2018. DOE officials plan to develop criteria to identify personnel who are prepared to take certification exams and will perform a department-wide evaluation, after which they plan to report to Congress by a target date of September 30, 2019. As of August 2020, DOE had not provided evidence that it had implemented this recommendation. We will continue to monitor the situation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should supplement the agency's 2016 long-term strategic review by conducting an additional analysis that takes into account private-sector response, oil market projections, and costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In May 2018, DOE partially agreed with the recommendation to supplement the 2016 long-term strategic review with an additional analysis that takes into account private-sector response, oil market projections, and costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes. In September 2018, the agency agreed to conduct two additional studies related to the future size of the SPR. According to DOE, the first study is currently underway and will determine the future configuration of the SPR at the end of all sales currently enacted into law. The SPR post-sale configuration study is expected to be completed by the end of calendar year 2018. DOE is beginning another study designed to assess the purpose, goals, and objectives of the SPR, which would ultimately lead to an optimal size of the SPR. To complete this study, DOE will focus on analyzing future requirements of the SPR rather than analyzing the benefits of various SPR sizes. As of December 2019, according to DOE, the Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Petroleum Reserves, presented a draft of the SPR post-sale configuration study to the Office of Fossil Energy for review. A draft of the requirements study, which assess the purpose, goals, and objectives of the SPR, was also presented to the Office of Fossil Energy for review.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should take actions to ensure that the agency periodically conducts and provides to Congress a strategic review of the SPR that, among other things, takes into account changes in crude oil and petroleum product market conditions and contains additional analysis, such as the costs and benefits of a wide range of different SPR sizes. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In May 2018, DOE agreed with the recommendation for periodic strategic reviews of the SPR and providing this information to Congress. In September 2018, DOE stated that a 5-year time interval between reviews is an appropriate timeframe. According to DOE, 5 years is sufficient time to allow current strategic plans to be implemented and assessed; the time period would also allow for adjustments as necessary. Given that the agency completed the SPR Long-Term Strategic Review in 2016 as the first of such strategic plans, the next strategic review of the SPR should be completed by the end of fiscal year 2021, according to DOE in December 2019.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should conduct or complete studies on the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves for all U.S. regions that have been identified as vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions, and the Secretary should report the results to Congress. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In May 2018, DOE disagreed with the recommendation to conduct or complete studies on the costs and benefits of regional petroleum product reserves. DOE stated that the agency's position is that government-owned and -operated regional petroleum product reserves are an inefficient and expensive solution to respond to regional fuel supply disruptions. In September 2018 and December 2019, DOE noted that given the inefficient and expensive nature of storing refined petroleum products in above-ground tanks, it would be an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds to conduct any additional studies on the use of federal government owned storage of refined petroleum products. However, the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015 recommended that similar analyses be completed for other areas deemed by DOE to be vulnerable to fuel supply disruptions. Therefore, we continue to believe that conducting these analyses, as recommended in the Quadrennial Energy Review of 2015, will provide Congress with information needed to make decisions about regional product reserves.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, in completing DOE's ongoing study on the effects of congressionally mandated sales, should consider a full range of options for handling potentially excess assets and, if needed, request congressional authority for the disposition of these assets. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE agreed with GAO's May 2018 recommendation and has taken steps to implement it. As of December 2019, according to DOE officials, the agency completed its analysis of leasing storage (e.g. excess assets) and is including this analysis in a broader study of the reserve's configuration, which is currently under review. However, DOE has not provided documentation of its analysis or study to GAO. DOE stated that it is having discussions with at least one country that may be interested in leasing storage from the United States to meet its international obligations. In September 2018, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6511, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve Reform Act, which would provide the Secretary of Energy with the authority to establish a program to lease certain underutilized Strategic Petroleum Reserve storage facilities to the private sector, or a foreign government or its representative, and would require that the Secretary of Energy establish and carry out a pilot program to make available for lease (1) up to 200 million barrels of petroleum products at Strategic Petroleum Reserve storage facilities and (2) related facilities. The bill was not passed by the Senate and had not been reintroduced in the 116th Congress as of February 18, 2020. Without examining a full range of options for handling potentially excess reserve assets, DOE risks missing beneficial ways to modernize the Strategic Petroleum Reserve while saving taxpayer resources.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct ORP to require the WTP contractor to determine the full extent to which problems exist in all WTP structures, systems, and components.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. As of June 15, 2020, DOE has started to take action to implement this recommendation, but actions are not sufficient to close it yet. DOE has directed the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) construction contractor to determine the full extent to which problems exist in all WTP structures, systems, and components and plans to complete full implementation of this recommendation by February 15, 2021.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should direct ORP to use its authorities to stop work in areas where quality assurance problems are recurring until ORP's Quality Assurance Division can verify that the problems are corrected and will not recur.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with the recommendation. As of July 1, 2020, DOE has taken some action to implement this recommendation, but actions are not sufficient to close it yet. To implement this recommendation, DOE strengthened and evaluated the existing Office of River Protection (ORP) Stop Work process to ensure it is sufficiently rigorous. In June 2020, ORP activated this new process. However, ORP has not yet used its authority to stop work in areas in areas where quality assurance problems are recurring.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should revise the scope of the mission need statement to clarify which mission need it seeks to achieve and, as appropriate, adjust the range of options considered in the analysis of alternatives process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA disagreed with our recommendation and has not taken steps to implement it. In August 2019, GAO requested an update on the status of the small centrifuge project at Oak Ridge since NNSA officials indicated in May 2019 that the status of the small centrifuge project will impact NNSA's ability to complete the analysis of alternatives (AOA) process by December 2019, as originally planned. Early in calendar year 2020, NNSA announced that completion of the AOA would be delayed to the end of fiscal year 2020. In September 2020, NNSA stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had further delayed the AOA and that the agency had not determined a revised target date for completion. We will continue monitoring the AOA process and will review the AOA once it is completed to determine whether we can close this recommendation at that time.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should--following clarification of the scope of the mission need statement--ensure that the agency's cost estimates for whichever options it considers going forward are aligned with the scope of the mission need that the enrichment capability is intended to fulfill and that they are developed consistent with best practices. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA disagreed with our recommendation and has not taken steps to implement it. In August 2019, GAO requested an update on the status of the small centrifuge project at Oak Ridge since NNSA officials indicated in May 2019 that the status of the small centrifuge project will impact NNSA's ability to complete the analysis of alternatives (AOA) process by December 2019, as originally planned. Early in calendar year 2020, NNSA announced that completion of the AOA would be delayed to the end of fiscal year 2020. In September 2020, NNSA stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had further delayed the AOA and that the agency had not determined a revised target date for completion. We will continue monitoring the AOA process and will review the AOA once it is completed to determine whether we can close this recommendation at that time.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should take steps to consult with respective sector partner(s), such as the SCC, DHS and NIST, as appropriate, to develop methods for determining the level and type of framework adoption by entities across their respective sector. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: The Department of Energy (DOE) stated that it worked with stakeholders to better align the Cybersecurity Capability Maturity Model (C2M2) with the updated NIST Cybersecurity Framework but did not provide specific information regarding the adoption or use of the framework. To fully address the recommendation, DOE should have a more comprehensive understanding of the framework's use by sector entities if DOE, along with other entities, want to ensure that its facilitation efforts are successful and determine whether organizations are realizing positive results by adopting the framework. We will continue to monitor DOE actions in response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require an independent entity to validate that contractor EVM systems used for LEPs meet the EVM national standard. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that the integrated baseline reviews, internal reviews of earned value management (EVM) systems used by life extension programs (LEP), and other controls over data integration provide a practical and cost-beneficial approach to the validation of contractor EVM systems. However, in early 2019, NNSA conducted a lessons learned study to more fully assess the cost, benefit, mission impacts, and feasibility of implementing our recommendation for possible application to future LEPs. According to NNSA documentation, based on the results of the lessons learned study, NNSA concluded that the effort and expense needed to validate contractor EVM systems against the EVM national standard could be better used providing resources to improve the agency's ability to establish work breakdown structures, schedules, and integration of scope, cost, and schedule. As a result, as of September 2019, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, without requiring an independent entity to validate that contractor EVM systems meet the EVM national standard, NNSA may not have assurance that its LEPs are obtaining reliable EVM data for managing their programs and reporting their status. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require an independent entity to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems used for LEPs to ensure that they maintain compliance with the EVM national standard through program completion. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that it conducts ongoing surveillance through integrated baseline reviews, internal reviews of EVM systems used by LEPs, and other assessments, which consider national standards. However, in early 2019, NNSA conducted a lessons learned study to more fully assess the cost, benefit, mission impacts, and feasibility of implementing our recommendation for possible application to future LEPs. According to NNSA documentation, based on the results of the lessons learned study, NNSA concluded that the effort and expense needed to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems to ensure compliance with the EVM national standard could be better used providing resources to improve the agency's ability to establish work breakdown structures, schedules, and integration of scope, cost, and schedule. As a result, as of September 2019, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, without requiring an independent entity to conduct surveillance reviews of contractor EVM systems through program completion, NNSA may not have assurance that its LEPs are obtaining reliable EVM data for managing their programs and reporting their status. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of NNSA should require its programs to ensure that LEP critical technologies meet specific technology readiness level benchmarks at decision points, or otherwise document with program executive approval their rationale for not meeting these benchmarks. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In October 2018, NNSA stated that it has already incorporated specific benchmarks for technology readiness levels at decision points. As an example, it stated that it recommends a technology readiness level of 5 at the beginning of phase 6.3 for an LEP. As a result, NNSA stated that its actions meet the intent of our recommendation. We disagree. As we stated in our report, it is important for NNSA to establish a requirement, not just a recommendation, that LEP critical technologies meet specific technology readiness level benchmarks at decision points. We will continue to monitor NNSA's activities to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should lead the development of a mechanism for interagency collaboration to determine roles and responsibilities for addressing priorities related to research on the health effects of low-dose radiation.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In a July 2018 update, DOE stated that it believes that the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's (OSTP) National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) is the appropriate entity to lead interagency collaboration and coordinate science and technology policy. According to DOE, OSTP intends to charter an interagency working group under the NSTC on a government-wide strategy related to research on the health effects of low-dose radiation. As of December 2019, OSTP had begun to address a related requirement under the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act to coordinate federal efforts related to radiation biology research and planned to release a report on this topic in early 2020. When we confirm what actions OSTP has taken to establish this working group, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: To address demonstrated noncompliance with section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, as amended, the Secretary of Energy should comply with sections 15(k)(3), (k)(8), and (k)(17) or report to Congress on why the agency has not complied, including seeking any statutory flexibilities or exceptions believed appropriate.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.

Recommendation: The Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, Energy, HHS, Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury, and VA; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrators of EPA, GSA, and SBA; the Director of OPM; and the Chairman of NRC should take action to, within existing OMB reporting mechanisms, complete plans describing how the agency will achieve OMB's requirement to implement automated monitoring tools at all agency-owned data centers by the end of fiscal year 2018.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (Energy) concurred with our recommendation and described planned actions to implement it. Specifically, the department stated that it established plans to implement automated monitoring tools at its 78 department-owned tiered data centers and planned to evaluate whether its 68 department-owned non-tiered data centers should be consolidated or closed. In November 2017 correspondence to GAO, the department further stated that, for the non-tiered centers projected to remain open, it expected to complete plans for automated server utilization by September 30, 2019. In November 2019, Energy reported that it had 92 agency-owned data centers that the department planned to keep open, of which the Office of Management and Budget exempted three from optimization requirements by. However, of the remaining 89 data centers, only 37 had implemented the advanced monitoring tools. As of January 2020, we have not received a more recent update from the department about how it will meet the Data Center Optimization Initiative requirement to implement monitoring tools at the remaining 52 agency-owned data centers. We will continue to monitor the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that DOE's treatment of Hanford's supplemental LAW is risk based and cost effective, the Secretary of Energy should develop updated information on the effectiveness of treating and disposing of all the different portions of Hanford's supplemental LAW with alternate methods or at alternate disposal sites, and based on this information, identify potential treatment and disposal pathways for different portions of Hanford's supplemental LAW, considering the risks posed by the LAW. In implementing this recommendation, DOE should take into account the results of the analysis required by Section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: As of January 2020, DOE is taking steps to implement GAO's May 2017 recommendation. In 2017, DOE's Office of River Protection contracted with Savannah River National Laboratory, a federally funded research and development center, to evaluate viable treatment options for supplemental low-activity waste. According to DOE, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a peer review of that laboratory's evaluation. The laboratory issued a final report in October 2019, and the National Academies issued a final report in late March 2020. According to DOE officials, both reports include information DOE may be able to use in making a decision about treating supplemental low-activity waste. DOE told GAO that they plan to use the studies as scoping documents as they move forward with the decision process. According to DOE officials, as of January 2020, DOE plans to decide how it will treat supplemental low-activity waste by 2026. In addition, in response to GAO's May 2017 recommendation, DOE said it successfully completed the first phase of a project--called the Test Bed Initiative--in December 2017 to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of three gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at an alternate disposal site in Andrews, Texas. As of November 2018, DOE was beginning a second phase to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of 2,000 gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at the same site in Texas. However, DOE stopped the demonstration project in spring 2019 when it withdrew its permit application for the Test Bed Initiative. According to DOE officials, this was because the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) proposed that DOE and Ecology engage in negotiations to develop a "holistic and realistic" approach to the retrieval and treatment of Hanford's tank waste. Congressional appropriations committees directed that DOE could spend up to $10 million to continue the Test Bed Initiative in fiscal year 2020, but DOE officials do not have specific plans for resuming the initiative. In October 2018, DOE requested public comment on a new interpretation of the statutory term "high level waste," which if the agency adopts it, could facilitate the use of alternate treatment and disposal methods. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 prohibits DOE from spending its fiscal year 2020 funds on applying this high-level radioactive waste interpretation at Hanford, and as a result, DOE officials stated that DOE does not have near-term plans to use this high-level waste interpretation for supplemental low-activity waste at Hanford. Until DOE develops information that reflects what is now known about the performance of alternate treatment and disposal methods, such as immobilizing tank waste in grout, congressional and agency decision makers will not have access to current scientific information as they decide how to best allocate limited financial resources among many competing needs. Moreover, having updated information on the effectiveness of alternate methods for treating supplemental low-activity waste will help to inform DOE's discussions with the state of Washington.

Recommendation: To help ensure that DOE's treatment of Hanford's supplemental LAW is risk based and cost effective, the Secretary of Energy should have an independent entity develop updated information on the lifecycle costs of treating and disposing of Hanford's supplemental LAW with alternate methods or at alternate disposal sites. In implementing this recommendation, DOE should take into account the results of the analysis required by Section 3134 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of January 2020, DOE is taking steps to implement GAO's May 2017 recommendation. In 2017, DOE's Office of River Protection contracted with Savannah River National Laboratory, a federally funded research and development center, to evaluate viable treatment options for supplemental low-activity waste. According to DOE, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conducted a peer review of that laboratory's evaluation. The laboratory issued a final report in October 2019, and the National Academies issued a final report in late March 2020. According to DOE officials, both reports include information DOE may be able to use in making a decision about treating supplemental low-activity waste. DOE told GAO that they plan to use the studies as scoping documents as they move forward with the decision process. According to DOE officials, as of January 2020, DOE plans to decide how it will treat supplemental low-activity waste by 2026. In addition, in response to GAO's May 2017 recommendation, DOE said it successfully completed the first phase of a project--called the Test Bed Initiative--in December 2017 to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of three gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at an alternate disposal site in Andrews, Texas. As of November 2018, DOE was beginning a second phase to demonstrate the feasibility of grouting, transporting, and disposing of 2,000 gallons of Hanford's low-activity waste at the same site in Texas. However, DOE stopped the demonstration project in spring 2019 when it withdrew its permit application for the Test Bed Initiative. According to DOE officials, this was because the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) proposed that DOE and Ecology engage in negotiations to develop a "holistic and realistic" approach to the retrieval and treatment of Hanford's tank waste. Congressional appropriations committees directed that DOE could spend up to $10 million to continue the Test Bed Initiative in fiscal year 2020, but DOE officials do not have specific plans for resuming the initiative. In October 2018, DOE requested public comment on a new interpretation of the statutory term "high level waste," which if the agency adopts it, could facilitate the use of alternate treatment and disposal methods. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 prohibits DOE from spending its fiscal year 2020 funds at Hanford on this high-level radioactive waste interpretation, and as a result, DOE officials stated that DOE does not have near-term plans to use this high-level waste interpretation for supplemental low-activity waste at Hanford. Until DOE develops information that reflects what is now known about the costs of alternate treatment and disposal methods, such as immobilizing tank waste in grout, congressional and agency decision makers will not have access to current cost information as they decide how to best allocate limited financial resources among many competing needs.

Recommendation: To help NNSA put forth more credible modernization plans, the NNSA Administrator should include an assessment of the affordability of NNSA's portfolio of modernization programs in future versions of the Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan--for example, by presenting options NNSA could consider to bring its estimates of modernization funding needs into alignment with potential future budgets, such as potentially deferring the start of or canceling specific modernization programs.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: NNSA included a new section in the Fiscal Year 2020 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP) of its analysis of the affordability of its weapons modernization plans. However, this section still does not include details about, or an assessment of, the options NNSA might have to take in the future--such as adjusting the schedules or scopes of certain programs or projects--to address an apparent misalignment between the future budget estimates of its portfolio of nuclear modernization programs and the projections of potential future budgets. Therefore, we will continue to review future SSMPs to assess whether NNSA has included additional information or an assessment consistent with this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, working with the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, should include more complete information on the assessments--that is, security plans, vulnerability assessments, independent assessments, and other assessments--used in the annual reports to support the agencies' assessments that DOE and NNSA sites are secure.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: We reported in May 2019 that DOE and NNSA continued to make progress in responding to this recommendation. The draft 2018 annual report contained, as recommended, more complete and uniform information on assessments, though in some cases different terminology was used by programs and sites. As of June 2020, we have requested final 2018, 2019, and 2020 annual reports from NNSA to ensure progress has continued. Once we have received and reviewed the reports, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: Additionally, the Secretary of Energy should develop a plan for addressing the physical security infrastructure needs at DOE sites. Similar to a report under development by NNSA, this plan could identify cost and time frames and enable DOE and the Congress to prioritize these projects.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, DOE has not implemented this recommendation. While DOE program offices (Environmental Management, Science, and Nuclear Energy) are individually considering long-term needs, the program offices are not required by Congress to submit the kind of physical security plan that Congress requires of NNSA. In the absence of Congressional direction, we believe it is unlikely that DOE will fully implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: Additionally, the Secretary of Energy should, in future annual security certification reports, inform Congress of the reasons for the delayed implementation of the June 2011 DOE material control and accountability order at some sites, as well as the steps DOE and its sites are taking to implement it. DOE should also provide Congress with information on any vulnerabilities or deficiencies in the security at sites that may potentially exist while the sites complete implementation of the order as well as information on any concomitant adjustment to their security posture that is required.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, we are continuing to monitor actions related to this recommendation. DOE has acknowledged in a classified memorandum the security risks associated with the slow pace of the material control and accountability order. DOE has also developed a plan to implement measures to address these risks in a phased approach with final implementation sometime in the 2020s. Some of the early phases will be complete between 2019 and 2022, but others will extend beyond 2022. As such, it will be important for DOE to continue to report to Congress on residual risk until planned actions are fully completed and their implementation has been verified by the relevant DOE program offices and DOE's Office of Enterprise Assessments. We will update the status of this recommendation once we have we have received and reviewed DOE's classified 2018-2020 annual reports to ensure this action is taken.

Recommendation: To allow DOE management to effectively monitor invoice reviews and have assurance that this control activity is operating as intended, the Secretary of Energy should establish a DOE-wide invoice review policy that includes requirements for sites to establish well-documented invoice review operating procedures.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report in March 2017, DOE concurred in principle with this recommendation, stating that it already had an established, detailed DOE-wide invoice review policy provided in DOE's Financial Management Handbook and in the DOE Acquisition Guide. In February 2020, DOE issued an update to its Financial Management Handbook that included additional procedures to address intra-governmental payment and collection transactions. However, neither the prior version of the Financial Management Handbook nor the additional information includes invoice review procedures. The Financial Management Handbook refers users to the DOE Acquisition Guide for procedures for invoice review. However, the Acquisition Guide states that it is intended to offer general guiding principles for approving officials to consider when reviewing and analyzing cost elements included in contract invoices--as opposed to detailed procedures for invoice review--and does not require sites to establish well-documented invoice review operating procedures, as we recommended.

Recommendation: To help DOE take a more strategic approach to managing improper payments and risk, including fraud risk, the Secretary of Energy should implement leading practices for managing the department's risk of fraud, including creating a structure with a dedicated entity within DOE to design and oversee fraud risk management activities.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report in March 2017, DOE partially agreed with the recommendation. In its written comments on the report, DOE stated that it considered the recommendation to be closed without corrective action and that it would rely on the existing Office of Financial Policy and Internal Controls and on the DOE Office of Inspector General (OIG) to design and oversee financial fraud risk management activities. However, we disagree that relying in part on the OIG to design and oversee fraud risk management activities meets best practices because, according to GAO's Fraud Risk Framework, the dedicated entity should not include the OIG so that the OIG can maintain its independence. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE expects to establish a new group in fiscal year 2020 that will oversee DOE's fraud risk management activities. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help DOE take a more strategic approach to managing improper payments and risk, including fraud risk, the Secretary of Energy should implement leading practices for managing the department's risk of fraud, including conducting fraud risk assessments that are tailored to each program and use the assessments to develop a fraud risk profile

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on a draft of the report in March 2017, DOE concurred with the substance of the recommendation; however they considered the recommendation to be closed without corrective action because DOE believed that its risk assessments met the requirements of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act of 2012, as reported by the Office of Inspector General (OIG), and because it has implemented updates to OMB Circular A-123 that added requirements related to managing fraud risk and adherence to GAO's Fraud Risk Framework. However, we found that DOE has not conducted fraud risk assessments that were tailored to its programs and, therefore, do not allow the department to create a fraud risk profile. We also found that, although DOE updated its internal control assessment tools with a list of fraud risks as required by OMB Circular A-123, the list of risks were the same for all DOE sites and were not tailored to the sites' different programs. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, the framework is expected to include changes to DOE's process to develop its fraud risk profile, beginning in fiscal year 2020. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help DOE take a more strategic approach to managing improper payments and risk, including fraud risk, the Secretary of Energy should implement leading practices for managing the department's risk of fraud, including developing and documenting an antifraud strategy that describes the programs' approaches for addressing the prioritized fraud risks identified during the fraud risk assessment.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on the draft report in March 2017, DOE concurred with this recommendation but considered the recommendation closed without corrective action because DOE had implemented the updated OMB Circular A-123 and because DOE's antifraud strategy was embedded in the DOE internal control program. However, DOE officials told us that they had not developed or documented a DOE-wide antifraud strategy or directed individual programs to develop program-specific strategies. Furthermore, DOE's implementation of OMB Circular A-123 included adding a list of potential risks to their internal control assessment tool that were the same for all DOE sites and were not tailored to the sites' different programs. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE is planning to develop an antifraud strategy in fiscal year 2021. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help DOE take a more strategic approach to managing improper payments and risk, including fraud risk, the Secretary of Energy should implement leading practices for managing the department's risk of fraud, including designing and implementing specific control activities, including fraud awareness training and data analytics, to prevent and detect fraud and other improper payments.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on the draft report in March 2017, DOE stated that it concurred in principle with the recommendation, but that it had implemented the recommendation. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE is planning to begin in fiscal year 2022 to use data analytics across the agency to prevent fraud. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that necessary data are available to employ data analytics as a tool to perform contractor cost-surveillance activities, the Secretary of Energy should require contractors to maintain sufficiently detailed transaction-level cost data that are reconcilable with amounts charged to the government, including (1) cost data that, at a minimum, represent a full data population and (2) the details necessary to determine the nature of each cost transaction, with such identifiers as transaction date, dollar amount, item or service description, and transaction codes to indicate the type of cost represented (e.g., construction materials, property lease, and office supplies).

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In its comments on the draft report in March 2017, DOE did not agree to implement this recommendation because officials believe that the recommendation establishes agency-specific requirements for DOE contractors that are more prescriptive than current federal requirements. In May 2020, DOE officials said they were developing a fraud risk and data analytics framework. Among other steps, DOE is planning to begin in fiscal year 2022 to use data analytics across the agency to prevent fraud. We will continue to monitor DOE's progress in implementing this recommendation.

Recommendation: To help ensure that NNSA effectively manages the performance of its programs, the Secretary of Energy should 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.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE stated that it will address our recommendation as part of its effort to meet the requirements of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016 (Act). This Act requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to adopt government-wide standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for agencies. In June 2018, OMB issued guidelines requiring federal agencies to submit a 5-year plan for implementing the Act. In November 2018, DOE submitted a draft implementation plan to OMB that described DOE's strategy for developing a DOE program management policy. In particular, its draft plan stated that DOE has established a working group to help develop the department's program management policy. To address our recommendation, DOE needs to finalize and issue its program management policy. We will continue to monitor DOE's actions.

Recommendation: 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, the Secretary of Energy should establish a training program for program managers.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE stated that it will address our recommendation as part of its effort to meet the requirements of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act of 2016 (Act). This Act requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to issue regulations identifying key program management skills and competencies, as well as to establish a new career path for program managers within an agency. In April and May of 2019, OPM issued guidance documents that identify competencies for program managers and update the job series classification for program managers. OPM officials also said that they have drafted a career path for program managers, which will highlight training and skills needed to progress in a program management career. In addition, DOE stated that it is holding working group meetings to develop strategies for program management training and certification. To address our recommendation, DOE needs to continue working with OPM and finalize its training program for program managers.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy should designate a career senior-level federal government employee to serve as co-chair of the White House Council on Native American Affairs' Energy Subgroup.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In June 2013, an executive order established the White House Council on Native American Affairs. However, the Council did not convene under the current Presidential administration until mid-2020. We will follow-up with DOE in fiscal year 2021 regarding this recommendation.

Recommendation: To improve federal agencies' efforts to rationalize their portfolio of applications, the heads of the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, Labor, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; and heads of the Environmental Protection Agency; National Aeronautics and Space Administration; National Science Foundation; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Office of Personnel Management; Small Business Administration; Social Security Administration; and U.S. Agency for International Development should direct their Chief Information Officers (CIOs) and other responsible officials to improve their inventories by taking steps to fully address the practices we identified as being partially met or not met.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: We reported that the Department of Energy partially met the following three software application inventory practices, (1) includes systems from all organizational components, (2) specifies basic application attributes, and (3) is regularly updated with quality controls to ensure reliability. In May 2017, the department reported that it plans to implement automated monitoring and inventory tools by the end of fiscal year 2020, which it expects will address the key practices. In December 2019, the department reported that it anticipates completing a refresh of its application inventory by the end of February 2020. We plan to monitor the department's efforts to implement the tools and to develop a complete application inventory.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOE's control activities continue to be relevant and effective for managing supply chain risk, the Secretary should direct the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, as the Administrator of the NNSA, to work with the Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence and other DOE organizations, as appropriate, to assess the circumstances that might warrant using the enhanced procurement authority, and (1) if this assessment identifies circumstances that might warrant using the authority, the Secretary should direct the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security to work with other DOE organizations, as appropriate, to establish processes for using it and examine whether adequate resources are in place to support those processes, and (2) communicate the results of this assessment to the relevant congressional committees for their use in determining whether to extend the authority past its current termination date.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In an October 7, 2016, letter the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) said he agreed with GAO's recommendation to assess situations that might warrant the use of the enhanced procurement authority and, should specific circumstances be identified for use of the authority, NNSA would develop a process for its use. The assessment would include an examination of resources to support use of the authority. NNSA would work with other Department of Energy organizations as appropriate in conducting the assessment. NNSA officials said they submitted the assessment to the congressional committees in March 2020. We requested a copy of the assessment and will update the status of this recommendation after we receive and review it.

Recommendation: To ensure that NNSA will provide clear information to stakeholders about the program needs that the revised CMRR project will satisfy, the Secretary should direct the Under Secretary for Nuclear Security, in his capacity as the NNSA Administrator, to update the program requirements document for the revised CMRR project to clarify whether the project will provide plutonium analysis equipment to meet the needs of DOE and NNSA programs other than those in the Office of Defense Programs.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, LANL has drafted a revised PRD but NNSA's review is not yet complete. This recommendation will remain open until we can evaluate the PRD.

Recommendation: To improve DOE's ability to evaluate and monitor the effectiveness of policies that call for all organizations, including contractors, to embrace a strong safety culture and create a work environment that encourages a questioning attitude by all employees, the Secretary of Energy should develop and implement an independent evaluation process for routinely and accurately measuring contractor employees' willingness to raise safety and other concerns without fear of retaliation. This process should ensure that an independent third party develops, conducts, and consistently applies the evaluation methodology--which should include safeguards that protect anonymity. The process should also enable DOE to oversee and ensure that appropriate corrective actions are taken in response to evaluation results.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation. DOE has developed a plan to analyze tools utilized by site contractors to determine the viability of using the data to monitor the influence of work environment on employees' willingness to raise safety concerns. As of March 2020, DOE had completed assessments of safety culture sustainment tools and drafted a report. According to officials, the draft report is undergoing final review and officials anticipate issuing the report by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: To help ensure that the organizational placement and practices of DOE- and contractor- provided Employee Concerns Programs (ECP) do not inhibit contractor employees from raising safety and other concerns, the Secretary of Energy should revise DOE's ECP order and guidance to (1) require that the organizational placement and practices of contractor ECP's do not compromise or impair their independence, (2) clarify the circumstances under which DOE's ECP is permitted to transfer and refer concerns to contractors, and notify or require approval of the contractor employee raising the concern, and (3) provide criteria for overseeing and evaluating the effectiveness and independence of contractor-provided ECPs.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation. DOE issued its revised order on the employee concerns program (ECP) in January 2019. However, that order did not address all three issues raised in our recommendation. Specifically, the order states that it is a best practice for contractor ECP managers to report to a designated executive in the contractor management chain, but does not include information on concerns of independence. Additionally, there is instruction that ECP managers must assess programs and how often, but there is not specific criteria for overseeing and evaluating effectiveness or independence. As of May 2020, we are continuing to discuss these issues with DOE officials.

Recommendation: To help ensure that Congress has the information it needs as it considers whether or not to make permanent the enhanced whistleblower pilot program and that DOE has assurance that contractor employees have an effective mechanism to seek remedy for unlawful retaliation, the Secretary of Energy should fully evaluate the extent to which the pilot program has been implemented and whether its provisions will mitigate challenges associated with DOE's 708 program. This evaluation should include, at a minimum, an assessment of (1) contractors that have adopted the pilot program and the date they did so; (2) contractors that have not adopted the pilot program and an explanation of why not; (3) cases filed under the pilot program, if any; and (4) the pilot program's potential for mitigating challenges associated with the 708 program.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred in principle with the recommendation. In response, the Office of Hearings and Appeals conducted a review of the Part 708 program that addressed three of the four items identified in the recommendation. As of May 2020, we are continuing to work with DOE on whether or how it plans to assess the contractors that have adopted the pilot program and the date they did so.

Recommendation: To help improve DOE's ability to take enforcement action against unlawful retaliation when appropriate and take action against contractors that create a chilled work environment, the Secretary of Energy should revise DOE's Integrated Safety Management policy and guidance to clarify what constitutes evidence of a chilled work environment and define the appropriate steps DOE should take to hold contractors accountable for creating a chilled work environment.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE concurred with the recommendation. In January 2018, DOE issued a revision to DOE Policy 450.4A. The revised policy states that organizations should foster a culture that allows employees to "feel free to raise safety concerns without fear of retaliation...and supporting a questioning attitude concerning safety by all employees." However, the policy does not define the appropriate steps DOE should take to hold contractors accountable for creating a chilled work environment. As of May 2020, we are continuing to work with DOE to determine whether they plan to make additional changes to the policy to address our recommendation.

Recommendation: In order to ensure complete, analyzable records regarding research grant award decisions are available for management and analysis, the Secretary of Energy should direct DOE's grant-making agencies to implement additional data collection efforts, which should include: (1) Retaining complete records of pre-proposal, proposal, and award data, including a record of proposal disposition, in linked electronic files to facilitate aggregate, statistical analysis of the grant-making process, including the calculation of success rates. (2) Collecting demographic, education, and career information from applicants, on a voluntary basis, that is not available to proposal reviewers but is used for analysis of success rates.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE generally agreed with this recommendation. DOE's Office of Science began collecting investigator demographics during the second quarter of fiscal year 2015 and already retained complete records that enabled the calculation of success rates. According to DOE officials, since September 2017, the other three grant-making components included in our audit have been taking various actions to implement the recommendation. These three components, the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE), the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), and the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE), all complete steps to ensure that they retain complete grant life cycle information for each individual award, including complete records of pre-proposal, proposal, and award data in linked electronic files, thus fulfilling the first part of our recommendation. In 2019, EERE coordinated the development of a Federal Register Notice (FRN) regarding data collection jointly with NE and ARPA-E. The FRN drafted by EERE was finalized and published on February 11, 2020 (Vol. 85, Issue 28, Pages 7759-7760 [FR DOC# 2020-02674]). Under the proposed information collection request, an interface will be implemented in DOE grant application systems to allow external users to voluntarily provide a minimal amount of demographic information to comply with this recommendation, pursuant to review by the Office of Management and Budget. On June 30th, DOE officials shared with GAO the draft FRN for the 30-day notice and request for public comment prior to implementation.

Recommendation: To provide decision makers with better insight and additional context to identify any significant changes to the estimates in the joint report from the prior year and understand the reasons for such changes, and to improve the completeness and transparency of the budget estimates in the report, we recommend that, for future joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the Department of Defense Chief Information Officer (DOD CIO), and the Secretary of Energy direct the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) to provide more thorough documentation in the joint report on the methodologies used to develop the budget estimates, including information that may be available in related planning documents, and ensure the accuracy and completeness of the information included.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Energy (DOE) concurred with our recommendation and has taken steps to address it. In both the fiscal year 2018 Joint Report and the fiscal year 2019 Joint Report, DOE included significantly more information on the methodologies used to develop its budget estimates. However, in the fiscal year 2019 Joint Report, DOE did not provide complete information on budget estimates over a 10-year period. Instead, it provided 5 years of budget estimates. We will re-evaluate DOE's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: To provide decision makers with better insight and additional context to identify any significant changes to the estimates in the joint report from the prior year and understand the reasons for such changes, and to improve the completeness and transparency of the budget estimates in the report, we recommend that, for future joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Secretary of the Air Force, the Secretary of the Navy, and the DOD CIO, and the Secretary of Energy direct the Administrator of NNSA to provide comparative information on changes in the budget estimates from the prior year and explain the reasons for those changes.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE concurred with our recommendation. However, as of the issuance of the fiscal year 2019 Joint Report, DOE had not taken steps to address this recommendation. The fiscal year 2019 Joint Report did not provide comparative information on changes in NNSA program costs relative to costs in prior joint reports. We will re-evaluate DOE's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: To improve the internal control environment for oversight using information from CAS and develop a consistent approach to the use of information from CAS in M&O contractor oversight and performance evaluation across the nuclear security enterprise, the Administrator of NNSA should establish comprehensive NNSA policies and guidance, beyond a general framework as included in NAP-21, for using information from CAS to conduct oversight of M&O contractors, clarifying whether CAS is to cover mission-related activities, and describing how to conduct assessments of risk, CAS maturity, and the level of the contractor's past performance.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: We recommended that NNSA establish comprehensive policies and guidance, beyond a general framework, for using information from contractor assurance systems (CAS) to conduct oversight of management and operating (M&O) contractors, clarifying whether CAS is to cover mission-related activities and describing how to conduct assessments of risk, CAS maturity, and the level of the contractor's past performance. NNSA agreed with the recommendation and has taken an important step to revise its policy. However, NNSA needs to take additional action. Specifically, NNSA approved a revised corporate site governance policy in August 2016, and NNSA further revised its policy in October 2019. The revised policy improves on the agency's prior policy by clarifying one element in our recommendation that CAS is to cover mission-related activities. However the policy is still a general framework and NNSA has not established associated implementing guidance. Specifically, NNSA needs to develop guidance for NNSA headquarters' and field offices' procedures to use information from CAS and appropriately balance use of information from CAS with other more direct activities to oversee M&O contractors. As of April 2020, this recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To enhance the usefulness of NNSA's future reports to Congress describing the costs and benefits of its competition of M&O contracts under the requirements contained in Section 3121 of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2013, as amended, the NNSA Administrator should take steps to ensure that future reports reflect DOE's information quality guidelines, federal cost accounting standards, and GAO's best practices guidance relevant to the clear and complete presentation of information on each of the required topics. In particular, future reports should clearly and completely describe costs and benefits, including the agency's expectations, as well as the associated analysis, assumptions, information sources, and key limitations and uncertainties about costs and benefits described. The description of uncertainties should include key excluded or unspecified costs and benefits, such as those that are anticipated but not fully known at the time of report writing.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA believes it has met the requirements of the recommendation and considers it closed. In our March 2015 report--which examined NNSA's report on the contract to manage and operate the Pantex Plant and the Y-12 National Security Complex under a single management and operating (M&O) contract with Consolidated Nuclear Services (CNS)--we recommended that NNSA enhance the clarity and completeness of its future reports on the costs and benefits of M&O contract competitions. While NNSA demonstrated progress in implementing this recommendation in its September 2017, August 2018, and April 2019 reports to Congress on the costs and benefits of the contract competitions for the Sandia, Nevada, and Los Alamos sites respectively, NNSA did not provide clear and complete information on all required elements of these reports. Specifically, for the Sandia National Laboratories M&O contract, in our August 2018 report we found that NNSA addressed most but not all reporting requirements. For example, NNSA's report addressed all requirements pertaining to cost savings, other benefits, and disruptions or delays, but only partially addressed the reporting requirements on the limitations or uncertainties about cost savings and on the immediate costs of competition and over the life of the contract. NNSA issued a report in August 2018 on the costs and benefits of its competition of the M&O contract for the Nevada National Security Site. In our April 2019 report on NNSA's cost-benefit analysis of that contract competition, we found that, of the five required reporting elements, NNSA's report addressed one with detail but addressed the other four without detail. In April 2019 NNSA issued its cost-benefit analysis of the competition for the Los Alamos National Laboratory contract. In our January 2020 report on NNSA's cost-benefit report for that contract competition, we found that it addressed five reporting elements on costs and disruption during contract transition with detail, partially addressed two reporting elements on uncertainties and benefits, and did not address one reporting element on activities to be covered by the M&O contractor. Since our 2015 recommendation, NNSA's cost-benefit reports on M&O contract competitions have generally provided clearer and more complete information on most of the required reporting elements, but they have not provided clear and complete information on all required reporting elements. In June 2020, NNSA announced that it would end the current CNS contract for Pantex and Y-12 management and operations instead of awarding the contractor its final option term. This will result in a new contract competition and award by the end of the current contract's term on September 30, 2021. The NNSA report on the costs and benefits of that competition may give us another opportunity to assess the quality of NNSA's reports for clarity and completeness on the required reporting elements.

Recommendation: To ensure that DOE's long-term plans for storing waste in the existing SSTs and DSTs at Hanford consider the condition of the tanks and the WTP construction delay, the Secretary of Energy should assess the extent to which the factors that may have led to corrosion in AY-102 are present in any of the other 27 DSTs.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of March 2020, DOE has not yet done this study though they are currently planning to do so.

Recommendation: To help achieve and sustain public acceptance for future spent nuclearfuel management efforts, the Secretary of the Department of Energy should develop and implement a coordinated outreach strategy for providing information to specific stakeholders and the general public on federal activities related to managing spent nuclear fuel.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In 2015 and 2016, the Department of Energy (DOE) solicited public comments as part of a policy to develop a consent-based siting process for high-level radioactive waste management facilities. However, DOE's solicitation of public comments does not reflect a coordinated outreach strategy to achieve and sustain public acceptance for the decades required to site, license, construct, and operate waste management facilities. As of March 2020, we are following up with DOE to determine the status of the agency's response to this recommendation.

Recommendation: To reduce uncertainty about the expected cost and schedule of the U.S. ITER Project and its potential impact on the U.S. fusion program, once the ITER Organization completes its reassessment of the international project schedule, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Associate Director of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences to use that schedule, if reliable, to propose a final, stable funding plan for the U.S. ITER Project, approve a performance baseline with finalized cost and schedule estimates, and communicate this information to Congress.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open
Priority recommendation

Comments: DOE approved a performance baseline for the first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project in January 2017 and communicated that performance baseline to Congress. However, as of June 2020, DOE has not set a performance baseline for the post-first plasma portion of the project. DOE officials told us the Administration was reviewing U.S. participation in ITER. They said that if, at the end of the review, the Administration decided to continue U.S. participation in ITER, then DOE would set a performance baseline for the post-first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project.

Recommendation: To reduce uncertainty about the expected cost and schedule of the U.S. ITER Project and its potential impact on the U.S. fusion program, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Associate Director of the Office of Fusion Energy Sciences to direct the U.S. ITER Project Office to revise and update the project's cost estimate to meet all characteristics of high-quality, reliable cost estimates. Specifically, the U.S. ITER Project Office should revise the project's cost estimate to ensure it is credible by including a comprehensive sensitivity analysis that includes all significant cost elements and conducting an independent cost estimate.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE revised and updated the cost estimate for the first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project in November 2016. Officials reported that, as part of that update, the U.S. ITER Project Office completed a comprehensive sensitivity analysis and that the Office of Science's Office of Project Assessment had conducted a review of the revised cost estimate. However, as of June 2020, DOE had yet to revise and update the cost estimate for the post-first plasma portion of the U.S. ITER Project. DOE officials told us they planned to do so when they set a performance baseline for that portion of the project, which they expected to do if, at the end of an ongoing review, the Administration decided to continue U.S. participation in ITER.

Recommendation: To help improve its ability to oversee M&O contractor costs, including indirect costs, for its laboratories and make more effective use of DOE and contractor resources, the Secretary of Energy should take--or, as appropriate, direct the Administrator of NNSA to incorporate more specific benchmarking requirements into future laboratory contracts--similar to the benchmarking requirements used by DOE to assess and manage pension and post-retirement benefit costs--including which costs should be benchmarked, how frequently benchmarking should occur, and what process should be used to ensure corrective actions are taken, as needed.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In April 2017, the Director of NNSA Office of Policy issued guidance to NNSA Laboratory Field Office Managers to update contracts to include a new clause requiring laboratory contractors to submit a strategic plan every year in accordance with guidance. Part of the annual plan requires contractors to discuss the costs of doing business and cost-increase factors at the sites, including overhead dollars. The annual strategic plan is due to the NNSA Office of Policy by August 15 each year. The annual strategic plans included information on indirect costs and cost drivers, but did not include benchmarking. We again requested information on the benchmarking requirements, if any, in July 2020.

Recommendation: To help ensure that EM more effectively manages all its projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Senior Advisor for Environmental Management and the Director of the Office of Management, as appropriate, to provide the Office of Acquisition and Project Management with information on EM's project classification decisions to ensure that all capital asset projects have been appropriately classified and are managed in accordance with DOE Order 413.3B.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: DOE agreed with our recommendation. EM is working with DOE's Office of Project Management to draft a Cleanup Project Management Policy (expected to be completed in fall 2020) to address the Decommissioning and Deactivation phase of cleanup. This policy will become an appendix in DOE's Order 413.3B. EM officials further stated that EM plans to develop an additional Cleanup Program Management Policy that would classify the remaining types of activities not covered by the Cleanup Project Management Policy, including what EM currently classifies as operations activities. EM plans to implement this policy by the end of fiscal year 2020.

Recommendation: To enhance federal agencies' ability to realize enterprise architecture benefits, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Air Force, the Army, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, the Navy, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney General; the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Small Business Administration; the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Social Security Administration; and the Directors of the National Science Foundation and the Office of Personnel Management should fully establish an approach for measuring enterprise architecture outcomes, including a documented method (i.e., steps to be followed) and metrics that are measurable, meaningful, repeatable, consistent, actionable, and aligned with the agency's enterprise architecture's strategic goals and intended purpose.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: In August 2020, the Department of Energy demonstrated that it had taken steps to implement the recommendation. Specifically, in March 2020, the department developed a draft plan to measure business architecture performance. We will monitor the department's efforts to finalize and implement its plan.

Recommendation: To enhance federal agencies' ability to realize enterprise architecture benefits, the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture, the Air Force, the Army, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, the Interior, Labor, the Navy, State, Transportation, the Treasury, and Veterans Affairs; the Attorney General; the Administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency, General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Small Business Administration; the Commissioners of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Social Security Administration; and the Directors of the National Science Foundation and the Office of Personnel Management should periodically measure and report enterprise architecture outcomes and benefits to top agency officials (i.e., executives with authority to commit resources or make changes to the program) and to OMB.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, the Department of Energy had not implemented the recommendation. In May 2020, the department described steps it had taken to develop its enterprise architecture. For example, it said that the department had established a Technical Reference Model, which supports processes and criteria for selecting and reviewing software across the department's headquarters. The department said it used the reference model to identify software products that could be eliminated or consolidated to achieve cost savings. However, as of August 2020, the department had not provided documents demonstrating that it had measured and reported architecture outcomes. We will continue to monitor the status of the department's efforts to implement the recommendation.

Recommendation: To enhance NNSA's ability to better ensure the validity of its budget submissions, and to decide on resource trade-offs, the Secretary of Energy should direct the DOE Office of Budget to formally evaluate DOE Order 130.1 and revise as necessary, and communicate any revisions to the NNSA Administrator so that the agency will have updated provisions for assessing the quality of its budget estimates.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: According to DOE's audit tracking system report, for the period ending 1/28/16, DOE Office of Budget was evaluating and revising DOE Order 130.1 as necessary to include planning, programming, budgeting, and evaluation (PPBE). The report states that the Office of Budget will communicate revisions to NNSA as appropriate with an estimated completion date of 9/30/16. According to a previous tracking system report, Order 130.1 was updated and placed in the management review process some time between 6/30/13, and 9/30/13. According to DOE, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer implemented a new funding execution system on 10/1/16. The development and implementation of the new system has delayed revision of DOE Order 130.1. The new system will impact the budget practices, planning, policies and processes content that will be outlined in the revised DOE 130.1. As of 6/30/20, DOE's Directives Review Board established an Integrated Project Team to revise the Department's Budget Formulation and Budget Execution Directives. Final approval of the revised guidance is anticipated by 9/30/20.

Recommendation: To allow Congress to better oversee management of the nuclear security enterprise and to improve NNSA's management information with respect to the base capabilities necessary to ensure nuclear weapons are safe, secure, and reliable, the Administrator of NNSA should, once the Stockpile Services work breakdown structure reflects a product or capability basis, use this work breakdown structure to develop product/capability cost estimates that adequately justify the congressional budget request for Stockpile Services.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA has significantly improved its work breakdown structure for Stockpile Services. The work breakdown structure now reflects a product or capability basis to a much greater extent than it did previously. NNSA restructured its budget starting with its fiscal year 2021 budget justification materials. GAO, through ongoing work, is continuing to monitor NNSA's development of cost estimates for Stockpile Services products and capabilities that inform future years' budget requests and justifications.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and to improve the transparency and usefulness of cost analyses prepared for future NNSA nuclear facilities modernization projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to ensure that life cycle cost analyses include a thorough and balanced evaluation of short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives. Such analyses should consider the full useful life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirement for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time that might produce results that favor one option over another.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA provided evidence that it requires life cycle cost analyses for projects greater than $20 million. However, this is not fully responsive to GAO's recommendation. For example, the recommendation stated that each life cycle cost analysis performed includes short- and long-term construction and financing alternatives and that these analyses should consider the full life of the facility rather than the 20-year requirements for GSA leases or any predetermined length of time. NNSA's actions do not address this aspect of the life cycle cost analysis. Our work found that facility's life cycle cost analysis only covered 20 years and it failed to reflect cost savings over a longer useful life (possibly over 50 years) that could have been realized if the facility were purchased instead of leased. Nothing in the Order addresses how the life cycle cost period to be analyzed should be established (e.g., 20 years or 50 plus years). Although we requested additional information from NNSA on this recommendation in fiscal year 2019, the agency has not responded. As a result, as of June 2020, the recommendation remains open.

Recommendation: To strengthen NNSA's oversight practices and current and future facility modernization efforts, and because of the importance of mitigating the risks of outsourcing nuclear weapons components and other information that if exported, might allow potential adversaries to develop or advance their nuclear capabilities, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to take immediate action to assess the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of KCP's current export control and nonproliferation practices and, if appropriate, initiate corrective actions to strengthen that oversight.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of August 2020, there has been no change in the status of this recommendation. While NNSA/contractor actions are commendable and appear to be beneficial, such as adding performance-based incentives, training 950 employees, and including new contract clauses in its supplier purchase orders, these actions do not fully satisfy the recommendation. GAO's recommendation was specifically directed at the effectiveness of NNSA's oversight of the KCP contractor's export control and nonproliferation practices and to initiate corrective actions to strengthen that NNSA oversight. While the Kansas City Site Office's addition of a performance based incentive seems to be a good improvement, NNSA has not demonstrated its own oversight effectiveness. Our review of NNSA's response provided in March 2014 was not persuasive. In addition, GAO-16-710 found that as of May 2016, the Secretary of Energy had not used the enhanced procurement authority to ensure supply chain integrity, and the Department of Energy (DOE) had not developed processes for using the authority, as it had not fully assessed the circumstances under which the authority might be useful. Although NNSA provided additional information on this recommendation in August 2019, these actions relied primarily on contractor self assessments and not on independent federal oversight. As a result, this recommendation will continue to remain open.

Recommendation: To improve the management of the stockpile life extension program, the Administrator of NNSA should direct the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to develop a realistic schedule for the W76 warhead and future life extension programs that allows NNSA to (1) address technical challenges while meeting all military requirements and (2) build in time for unexpected technical challenges that may delay the program.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In past and ongoing work, GAO has identified areas where NNSA's modernization plans may not align with planned funding requests over the Future Years Nuclear Security Plan (FYNSP) and post-FYNSP periods. Based on the FY 2014 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP), (GAO-14-45) NNSA plans to work on five life extension programs (LEP) or major alterations through 2038. The FY 2014 SSMP states that the LEP workload represents a resource and production throughput challenge that requires improvements in LEP planning and execution. GAO's analysis indicates there is limited contingency time built into the LEP schedules, all of which are technically ambitious. Any delays in schedules could lead to an increase in program costs or a reduction in the number built for any of the LEPs, both of which have occurred in prior and ongoing LEPs. While NNSA has acknowledged issues and identified some steps to improve the LEP process, this recommendation will remain open and unimplemented until NNSA demonstrates successful LEP and refurbishment execution. We reconfirmed this finding in GAO-17-341 where we found the following: In some cases, NNSA's FY 2017 nuclear security budget materials do not align with the agency's modernization plans, both within the 5-year FYNSP for fiscal years 2017 through 2021 and beyond, raising concerns about the affordability of NNSA's planned portfolio of modernization programs. As of June 2020, this situation has not been fully addressed as evidenced by cost increases and likely delays in the B61-12 and W88 ALTV programs; an aggressive schedule in the W80-4 program, and a large scope in the W87-1 warhead replacement. In addition, new programs contained in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review and the announcement of a new development effort, the W93, may further stress NNSA's program.

Recommendation: To improve the management of the stockpile life extension program, the Administrator of NNSA should direct the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to ensure that the program managers responsible for overseeing the construction of new facilities directly related to future life extension programs coordinate with the program managers of such future programs to avoid the types of delays and problems faced with the construction and operation of the Fogbank manufacturing facility for the W76 program.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: A number of Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plans (SSMP) state that the life extension program (LEP) workload represents a resource and production throughput challenge that requires improvements in LEP planning and execution. The officials elaborated that the main area that will be strained is pit production. NNSA's plutonium strategy needs to be resourced fully and implemented successfully by 2030 to support the W87 warhead replacement. Additionally, the officials said that the UPF project and an arrange of associated programmatic efforts need to be operational by 2025 or there will be challenges in completing all of the planned LEPs. In addition, NNSA needs to re-establish depleted uranium operations, construct a new lithium facility and establish a domestic uranium enrichment function for tritium production by the late 2020s to meet stockpile needs. As such, this recommendation remains open and, given the aggressive warhead and bomb modernization efforts proceeding in parallel with infrastructure modernization efforts, will likely remain open for some time.

Recommendation: To improve the management of the stockpile life extension program, the Administrator of NNSA should direct the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to ensure that program managers for the construction of new facilities for future life extensions base their schedule for the construction and start-up of a facility on the life extension program managers' needs identified in their risk mitigation strategies.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA has generally improved its management of construction projects, to include requirements setting, Analysis of Alternatives, and independent cost estimates, among other items. However, it is too soon to tell if these positive developments will help--or hinder--LEPs that are underway or are being conducted. Key uranium activities, to include construction and operating funds will not be complete until 2025; key tritium and lithium programs and facilities will not complete until the 2030s; key plutonium activities are underway as well, but will not be complete until the late 2020s. As of June 2020, there are no significant changes related to this recommendation, and it will continue to remain open.