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 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 State, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, should commit to regularly scheduled, substantive briefings for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on all initiatives and negotiations related to nuclear cooperation in order to enhance transparency and establish greater confidence with Congress on nuclear cooperation matters. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: We will update this recommendation after receiving information from State regarding its plans to address it.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Director of CAPE, in coordination with the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy, and the Joint Staff Deputy Director for Strategic Stability, as co-chairs of the Nuclear Deterrent Senior Oversight Group, update the applicable guidance for methods of tracking and evaluating progress on implementation of the recommendations from the 2014 nuclear enterprise reviews, requiring DOD components to keep information—including any revised time frames—current. (Recommendation 1)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that the Nuclear Deterrent Senior Oversight Group co-chairs or, as necessary, the Deputy Secretary of Defense as the chair of Nuclear Deterrent Enterprise Review Group (NDERG), will update the applicable guidance to ensure that time frames and other information associated with planned actions are kept up to date. In April 2020, the acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Matters issued a memo requesting updates to information that is included in the 2014 tracker by June 1, 2020; however, no additional guidance requiring continuing updates beyond June 1 has been issued as of September 2020.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment updates the applicable guidance for methods of tracking and evaluating progress on implementation of the recommendations of the 2015 NC3 report, requiring DOD components to keep information—including metrics for measuring progress and outcomes as well as any revised time frames that may extend out more than 1 year—complete and current. 49 (Recommendation 2)

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

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation and stated that the DOD Chief Information Officer and, as appropriate, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment as the NC3 capability portfolio manager, will update the applicable guidance to ensure that metrics, time frames, and other information associated with planned actions are kept up to date and complete.

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: 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 Labor, in conducting any assessment of its staff training designed to improve clarity of communication with claimants, should ensure that the assessment considers claimants' challenges with understanding DOL's written communications on the evidence needed to successfully reopen or otherwise support a claim.

Agency: Department of Labor
Status: Open

Comments: DOL neither agreed nor disagreed with this recommendation. However, DOL acknowledged that it plans to focus its staff training efforts on a variety of needed training topics, including improving the quality of written communications. DOL further noted that its recently hired training analyst will be responsible for, among other things, designing assessment measures to gauge the quality of training and the effect it has improving the overall quality of claim outcomes. We encourage DOL to continue designing its assessment so that it considers claimants' challenges in understanding the evidence needed. As of July 2019, DOL said it will soon contract with a training vendor to help update training materials and expects training to be rolled out in fiscal year 2020. In addition, DOL said it has conducted hands-on staff training that includes providing claimants with a clear understanding as to why a claim is accepted or denied. We will consider closing this recommendation pending implementation of the updated training and efforts to assess it.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense--in coordination with the military departments; U.S. Strategic Command; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs; CAPE; and other relevant components of DOD--identify in the planned charter and DOD directive clear roles and responsibilities for the members of the NDERG. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In June 2019, in response to our recommendation, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a charter for the NDERG that included information about the roles and responsibilities for the members of the NDERG. The charter also indicated that this information should be included in the appropriate DOD directive and/or issuance. This effort is still in progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense--in coordination with the military departments; U.S. Strategic Command; the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs; CAPE; and other relevant components of DOD--establish in the planned charter and DOD directive methods for the NDERG to communicate and collaborate with other organizations that have oversight responsibilities for portions of the nuclear enterprise. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. In June 2019, in response to our recommendation, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a charter for the NDERG that included information about the roles and responsibilities for the members of the NDERG. The charter also indicated that this information should be included in the appropriate DOD directive and/or issuance. This effort is still in progress.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--in coordination with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (as the Council on Oversight of the National Leadership Command, Control, and Communications System (NLC3S Council) co-chairs), and U.S. Strategic Command--update the applicable DOD guidance (such as the NLC3S Council's and Executive Management Board's charters) and identify whether there is a need to request changes to statutory or presidential guidance in order to clarify changes to roles and responsibilities for NC3 oversight. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 2020, according to DOD officials, DOD is working to update applicable guidance.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--in coordination with the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (as NLC3S Council co-chairs),and U.S. Strategic Command--update the applicable guidance to establish methods for communication and collaboration among organizations that have oversight responsibilities for portions of the nuclear enterprise as changes are considered for charters, guidance, and laws to reflect the changes to NC3 oversight. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with the recommendation. As of July 2020, according to DOD officials, DOD is working to update applicable guidance.

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 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 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: As DOD continues to improve the completeness and transparency of subsequent joint reports' methodologies in order to assist Congress in understanding the basis of the NC3 estimates by documenting the methodological assumptions and limitations affecting the report's estimates for sustaining and modernizing the NC3 system, as we previously recommended, for future joint reports, the DOD CIO should include explanations of how DOD (1) selects program elements for inclusion in its NC3 estimate, (2) determines its weighted analysis ratios, and (3) differentiates its methodology for calculating operation and maintenance estimates from its methodologies for calculating estimates for the other NC3 line items.

Agency: Department of Defense: Office of the Chief Information Officer
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. As of the issuance of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Joint Report, DOD has taken some steps to address this recommendation. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop NC3 budget estimates. However, the methodology reported for NC3 estimates is still not transparent and DOD must still provide additional information beyond what the methodology in the joint report to clarify differences with the FYDP. However, according to DOD officials, actions will be taken to incorporate a more robust methodology that takes into account these issues in the FY2020 Joint Report. We will re-evaluate DOD's implementation of this recommendation as we review future joint reports.

Recommendation: In order to assist Congress in comparing year-to-year cost estimates between joint reports, for future joint reports, the Secretary of the Air Force should provide information about any programmatic changes (i.e., programs being moved from one line item to another) in its estimates and include an explanation of the reasons for those changes and how those changes may affect year-to-year comparisons of the budget estimates.

Agency: Department of Defense: Department of the Air Force
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, the Air Force identified some instances of programmatic changes in its estimates. However, not all programmatic changes were identified in the report. We will continue to monitor DOD's response to this recommendation as we review future annual joint budget estimate reports.

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: If DHS's proposed CBRNE program consolidation is approved by Congress, the Secretary of Homeland Security should direct the Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy to use, where appropriate, the key mergers and organizational transformation practices identified in our previous work to help ensure that a CBRNE consolidated office benefits from lessons learned from other organizational transformations.

Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Status: Open

Comments: We found that key mergers and organizational transformation practices identified in previous GAO work could benefit the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) during implementation of the proposed CBRNE consolidation. As a result, we recommended that should Congress approve DHS's CBRNE consolidation plan, the department use these key mergers and organizational transformation practices. In December 2018, the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 was enacted into law (Public Law 115-387) authorizing the proposed consolidation of CBRNE functions into a new Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD office). In a memo to Congress regarding the new CWMD office, DHS stated that it remained committed to evaluating GAO's identified practices when implementing the consolidation. In August 2019, DHS provided us with information outlining efforts to use the key mergers and organizational transformation practices during the CWMD implementation phase. However, we requested additional evidence that all practices were considered. For example, one of the key practices is to use the performance management system to define responsibility and assure accountability for change. DHS created position descriptions for CWMD office leadership but we did not receive evidentiary support to demonstrate that DHS has added CWMD office transition goals to relevant employee performance plans. In April 2020, DHS estimated June 2020 for completing steps responsive to this recommendation. We will update the status of this recommendation as additional information is made available.

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 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 Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, DOD had taken some steps to address this recommendation. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop budget estimates. However, DOD did not provide complete documentation of the methodologies used to determine budget estimates in the Joint Report. Specifically, DOD provided additional methodological information not included in the Joint Report to GAO in order to fully account for the estimates presented in the FY 2019 Joint Report. Both the Navy and the Air Force stated they would provide the additional methodological information in the FY 2020 Joint Report. In addition, we again identified some instances in which the Air Force's underlying budget information did not match its estimates in the Joint Report. Air Force officials explained that these discrepancies were due to an accounting error in the internal funding system and that the errors will be rectified in the FY 2020 Joint Report. We will continue to monitor DOD's response to 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 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 improve subsequent joint reports to Congress on plans for sustaining and modernizing U.S nuclear weapons capabilities and to improve the transparency of the joint report's methodologies, thereby assisting Congress in understanding the basis for DOD's NC3 estimates in subsequent joint reports, the Secretary of Defense should direct the DOD Chief Information Officer to document in the report the methodological assumptions and limitations affecting the report's estimates for sustaining and modernizing the NC3 system.

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: DOD concurred with our recommendation. In the Fiscal Year 2019 Joint Report issued in November 2018, DOD had taken steps to update its methodology for estimating nuclear command, control, and communications (NC3) funding. For example, DOD provided more information on the methodologies used to develop budget estimates. However, the methodology reported for NC3 estimates is still not transparent and DOD should provide additional information beyond what the methodology in the joint report to clarify differences with the Future Year Defense Program. According to DOD officials, actions will be taken to incorporate a more robust methodology that takes into account these issues in the FY 2020 Joint Report. We will re-evaluate DOD's implementation of this recommendation when we review the FY 2020 joint report.

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.