Technology Transfer: DOE Has Fewer Partnerships, and They Rely	 
More on Private Funding (06-JUL-01, GAO-01-568).		 
								 
Congress enacted the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer
Act to encourage federal laboratories operated by contractors to 
enter into cooperative research and development agreements	 
(CRADA) with businesses, universities, and other private	 
partners. This act was designed to improve the United States'	 
competitive position in the world economy by facilitating the	 
transfer of technology from federal laboratories to U.S.	 
businesses. This report reviews the National Nuclear Security	 
Administration's (NNSA) (1) use of CRADAs and (2) views on the	 
advantages and disadvantages of CRADAs. GAO found that NNSA has  
reduced its use of CRADAs while entering into more agreements	 
fully funded by private partners. Dedicated funding for CRADAs	 
was gradually phased out and program managers at the laboratories
were supposed to rely on regular research funding to make up the 
shortfall. However, NNSA laboratory managers have stated that	 
because the funding has not been replaced with research funds,	 
their laboratories have either prematurely terminated many CRADAs
or required the private partners to fully fund the work.	 
According to NNSA officials, CRADAs offers both advantages and	 
disadvantages. CRADAs have enabled laboratories to recruit and	 
retain experienced staff and have improved U.S.' businesses	 
position in the global economy. However, CRADAs also compete for 
limited funding and generally take longer to execute because of  
the complexity of the agreements.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-568 					        
    ACCNO:   A01359						        
  TITLE:     Technology Transfer: DOE Has Fewer Partnerships, and They
             Rely More on Private Funding                                     
     DATE:   07/06/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Laboratories					 
	     Technology transfer				 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Cooperative agreements				 
	     DOE Technology Transfer Initiative 		 
	     DOE Technology Parnership Program			 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-568
     
Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

July 2001 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER

DOE Has Fewer Partnerships, and They Rely More on Private Funding

GAO- 01- 568

Page 1 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

July 6, 2001 The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman The Honorable John W. Warner
Ranking Minority Member Committee on Armed Services United States Senate

The Honorable Bob Stump Chairman The Honorable Ike Skelton Ranking
Democratic Member Committee on Armed Services House of Representatives

Since 1980, the Congress has enacted several laws designed to improve the
United States? competitive position in the world economy by facilitating the
transfer of technology from federal laboratories to U. S businesses.
Specifically, the National Competitiveness Technology Transfer Act of 1989
authorized federal laboratories operated by contractors- including the
Department of Energy?s (DOE) national laboratories- to enter into
cooperative research and development agreements (CRADA) that are consistent
with the laboratories? mission. By fiscal year 1995, DOE?s three nuclear
weapons laboratories- Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories- were among the
leading federal laboratories participating in CRADAs with businesses,
universities, and other private partners. In addition, DOE?s Kansas City,
Pantex, and Oak Ridge Y- 12 nuclear weapons production facilities began
entering into CRADAs in the mid- 1990s. Within DOE, these laboratories and
production facilities are managed by the National Nuclear Security
Administration. Both the private partner( s) and the DOE laboratory or
production facility generally have provided scientists and facilities for
CRADA projects, and private partners have also provided funding to cover a
portion of the research costs. According to DOE, the laboratories and
production facilities have also transferred technology by, for example,
providing technical assistance to small businesses and entering into ?work-
for- other? agreements, in which the private entity pays the laboratory?s
full costs for performing a research project.

To further encourage DOE?s nuclear weapons laboratories and production
facilities to enter into partnerships with private entities, the Congress

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

established the Technology Transfer Initiative in fiscal year 1991 to
provide funding specifically designated for supporting CRADAs and other
types of partnerships. 1 Technology Transfer Initiative funding increased
from about $1 million initially to $205 million in fiscal year 1995.
However, the Congress began to phase out these dedicated funds in fiscal
year 1996 and rely instead on program managers at the laboratories and
production facilities to use regular research funding for partnerships that
would significantly benefit their programs. While the use of research funds
instead of dedicated funds ensures that a CRADA project will have primary
benefits to DOE?s research mission, it has raised concerns that DOE?s
laboratories will be less likely to support technology development
partnerships.

In response to these concerns, the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 directed DOE?s Administrator for
Nuclear Security to report on (1) the efficiency and effectiveness with
which NNSA and its nuclear weapons laboratories and production facilities
have implemented technology development partnerships with nonfederal
entities and (2) the advantages and disadvantages of CRADAs. 2 The act also
mandated that we provide an assessment of the administrator?s report within
30 days of its issuance. In response to this mandate, we briefed your
offices on the NNSA report, issued on April 16, 2001. 3 (See app. I for the
report?s highlights.) We also obtained data on technology partnerships at
NNSA?s laboratories and production facilities in addition to that presented
in NNSA?s report.

As agreed with your offices, this report provides information on (1) the
trends in the technology development partnerships used and funding made
available by DOE and private partners for each type of partnership and (2)
NNSA?s views of the advantages and disadvantages of CRADAs, along with
options that NNSA suggested for maintaining or increasing current financial
and management support for CRADAs.

1 The Technology Transfer Initiative was renamed the Technology Partnership
Program in fiscal year 1998. 2 NNSA was established in 2000 to consolidate
responsibility for overseeing DOE?s nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear
weapons missions, including its stockpile stewardship program.

3 Report to Congress on Technology Partnerships With Non- federal Entities
Within the National Nuclear Security Administration During Fiscal Year 2000.

Page 3 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

In recent years, NNSA?s laboratories and production facilities have
substantially revised their approaches to technology development
partnerships: They have reduced their use of CRADAs and the provision of
technical assistance to small businesses while entering into more agreements
fully funded by private partners. The number of CRADAs at NNSA facilities,
which peaked at 639 in fiscal year 1995, subsequently declined by more than
60 percent as dedicated funding for technology partnerships was gradually
eliminated. NNSA laboratory managers told us that because the dedicated
funding generally has not been replaced with NNSA research program funds,
their laboratories have either prematurely terminated many CRADAs or
required the private partners to fully fund the work. NNSA facilities also
are negotiating fewer new CRADAs- they entered into only 21 CRADAs during
the first 6 months of fiscal year 2001; in comparison, they entered into 240
new CRADAs in fiscal year 1995. Similarly, technical assistance for small
businesses, funded by the Technology Partnership Program, has declined by
more than 70 percent between fiscal years 1995 and 2000. In contrast, NNSA
facilities have increased work- for- other and technology licensing
activities, which are funded by private businesses. Overall, NNSA?s and
private partners? support of technology partnerships has dropped from $390
million in fiscal year 1995 to $175 million in fiscal year 2000 and to $81
million in the first 6 months of fiscal year 2001.

NNSA officials and laboratory managers identified various advantages and
disadvantages of collaborative research under a CRADA. In particular, CRADAs
can leverage NNSA?s research funds with additional private funding,
scientists, and equipment that extend NNSA?s research capabilities. CRADAs
also have enabled NNSA?s laboratories to maintain core competencies in
research and manufacturing and recruit and retain key scientists challenged
by interesting research projects. However, CRADAs require NNSA?s
laboratories to share control over the scope of the research, project time
frames, and intellectual property rights; and they may divert research funds
to projects with only secondary benefits to NNSA?s core mission. NNSA
laboratory managers identified two alternatives- establishing an advocate
within NNSA to facilitate funding for CRADAs and setting aside a small
portion of research funding specifically to provide initial support for
mission- related CRADAs- that would increase NNSA?s current management and
financial support for CRADAs and potentially increase the number of
agreements. Results in Brief

Page 4 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Technology development partnerships are key elements of the technology
transfer program of each NNSA laboratory and production facility. NNSA
laboratory and facility managers told us that they have primarily used the
following types of partnerships:

 CRADAs: An NNSA laboratory or production facility and private partner( s)
agree to collaborate on a research project that is consistent with DOE?s
mission and has a potential impact on U. S. economic competitiveness. The
NNSA laboratory or production facility and its private partner( s)
contribute personnel, services, facilities, equipment, intellectual
property, and/ or other resources to the CRADA project. The private partner(
s) may also provide funding, in- kind (noncash) contributions, and other
resources directly beneficial and specifically identifiable and necessary in
the performance of the project. However, NNSA and its laboratory or
production facility are not allowed to transfer funds to the private
partner( s). At a minimum, DOE retains a nonexclusive, nontransferable,
irrevocable license to use any invention developed under the CRADA on behalf
of the U. S. government. The private partner has the option to choose an
exclusive license for a pre- negotiated field of use for any inventions
developed by the NNSA laboratory or production facility under the CRADA.

 Technical assistance for small businesses: In response to section 3135( b)
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, NNSA?s
laboratories and production facilities have provided technical assistance to
small businesses.

 Work- for- other agreements: An NNSA laboratory or production facility
agrees to conduct a defined scope of work or list of tasks, and the private
partner pays for the entire cost of the project. While intellectual property
rights are negotiable, the private sponsor typically retains title rights to
any inventions.

 Cost- shared procurement contracts: An NNSA laboratory or production
facility and private partner( s) agree to collaborate to develop
technologies or computer codes for Defense Program mission requirements.
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has used these contracts for the
Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative.

 Technology licensing agreements: An NNSA laboratory or production facility
grants a business an exclusive or nonexclusive license to use its
intellectual property in return for a licensing fee and/ or royalties.
Background

Page 5 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

 User facility agreements: An NNSA laboratory or production facility
permits outside organizations to use its unique research equipment and/ or
facilities to conduct research. The private organization pays the full cost
of using research equipment or facilities and retains title rights to any
intellectual property.

In response to the phasing out of dedicated funding for partnerships, NNSA?s
laboratories and production facilities have reduced their CRADAs and
technical assistance to small businesses while entering into more agreements
that are fully funded by the business partners. The total number of CRADAs
at NNSA laboratories and production facilities has declined by more than 60
percent, from a high of 639 in fiscal year 1995 to 244- including only 21
new CRADAs- in the first 6 months of fiscal year 2001. During this period,
DOE?s funding for CRADAs dropped even more- from $222 million to $19
million. Similarly, technical assistance for small businesses dropped from
about 1, 700 actions that assisted small businesses in fiscal year 1995 to
136- including only 59 new assistance agreements- in the first 6 months of
fiscal year 2001. While these types of partnerships have declined, work-
for- other agreements and technology licenses, which require no DOE funds,
grew substantially. (Table 4 in app. II provides partnership data by fiscal
year for each NNSA facility.)

Table 1 shows that the number of active CRADAs at the NNSA laboratories and
production facilities grew rapidly in the early 1990s and then dropped by
more than half through the first 6 months of fiscal year 2001. This trend
reflects a similar pattern in the growth and decline of DOE?s dedicated
funding for technology partnerships. Sandia National Laboratories has
entered into more CRADAs than any other NNSA laboratory. (See table 5 in
app. II.) In fiscal year 1995, when CRADA activity peaked, Sandia had 254
active CRADAs- 40 percent of all NNSA CRADAs. Sandia participated in 153
CRADAs (44 percent of all CRADAs) in fiscal year 2000 and 120 CRADAs (about
50 percent of all CRADAs) in the first half of fiscal year 2001. The number
of CRADAs at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has dropped even more-
from 159 in fiscal year 1995 to 26 in the first two quarters of fiscal year
2001. Lawrence Livermore has shifted its emphasis from using CRADAs with
private partners to using procurement contracts with its contractors to
develop new technologies important for its mission, according to laboratory
officials. NNSA Laboratories

and Production Facilities Have Reduced Partnership Activities Not Fully
Funded by Private Partners

Page 6 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 1: CRADA Activity and Funding at NNSA Laboratories and Facilities,
Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 a Number
of CRADAs

Newly executed 21 104 177 237 240 137 102 103 113 50 21 Ongoing 6 23 96 211
399 494 380 312 281 298 223

Total 27 127 273 448 639 631 482 415 394 348 244 Source of funding support

DOE b $2.8 $24.4 $89.5 $157.6 $222.4 $172.0 $87.1 $69.7 $68.5 $35.4 $19.4
Private partners 4. 4 56.0 94.9 143.2 167.2 147.5 170.5 186.0 175.7 139.6
61.4

Total $7.2 $80.4 $184.4 $300.7 $389.6 $319.5 $257.6 $255.7 $244.2 $175.0
$80.8

a Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001. b DOE funding
support includes the Technology Transfer Initiative, the Technology
Partnership Program, and research program funds. The fiscal year 2001
funding is DOE?s total fiscal year commitment for existing CRADAs.

Sources: NNSA laboratories and production facilities and DOE?s Institutional
and Joint Programs Division.

Figure 1 shows funding sources for CRADAs at NNSA laboratories and
production facilities for fiscal years 1991 through 2000. As figure 1 and
table 1 show, CRADA expenditures at NNSA?s laboratories and production
facilities peaked in fiscal year 1995. In that year, DOE contributed $222
million, including $205 million in Technology Partnership Program funding,
and private partners contributed $167 million in direct and in- kind support
for CRADA activities. As DOE?s dedicated funding for technology partnerships
declined, the proportion of private partners? direct and inkind
contributions increased and has constituted more than half of all CRADA
funding since fiscal year 1997. In the first two quarters of fiscal year
2001, DOE contributed $19 million and private partners contributed $61
million in direct and in- kind support for CRADA activities. (See table 6 in
app. II for CRADA funding at individual NNSA facilities.)

Page 7 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Figure 1: Sources of Funding for CRADAs at NNSA Laboratories and Production
Facilities, Fiscal Years 1991 Through 2000

Note: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory could not provide data on the
value of partners? inkind support. Other NNSA facilities estimated partners?
in- kind support based on their planned contributions.

Source: GAO?s analysis of NNSA laboratories and production facilities data.

Table 2 shows the extent to which NNSA?s laboratories and production
facilities used the other primary types of technology development
partnerships. Generally, partnerships that relied on DOE funds have
decreased, while those predominantly funded by businesses have grown. For
example, technical assistance for small businesses, which was

Page 8 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

primarily funded by DOE?s Technology Partnership Program, dropped sharply-
from about 1,700 actions that assisted small businesses in fiscal year 1995
to about 500 in fiscal year 2000. In contrast, work- for- other agreements,
which are wholly funded by businesses, grew substantially from 209
agreements in fiscal year 1995 to 987 agreements in fiscal year 2000.
Similarly, technology licensing agreements have greatly increased during
this period. (See tables 7, 8, and 9 in app. II for each NNSA facility?s
participation in each of these partnerships.) User facility agreements,
which provide access to unique NNSA experimental research equipment and
facilities, increased from 103 in fiscal year 1995 to 165 in fiscal year
1998 and then decreased to 96 agreements in fiscal year 2000. Businesses
have provided more direct funding for work- for- other agreements than for
any of the other types of partnerships. (See table 10 in app. II.)

Table 2: Trends in the Other Primary Types of Partnerships at NNSA
Laboratories and Production Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second
Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year Type of partnership 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
2000 2001 a

Technical assistance for small businesses b b 630 1,622 1,722 1,322 908 669
560 490 136 Work- for- other agreements c 94 108 94 154 209 313 569 692 802
987 788 Cost- shared procurement contracts d 0 0 00000 4 4 44 Technology
licenses 33 52 87 213 300 503 600 669 764 844 938 User facilities agreements
12 17 22 69 103 119 141 165 94 96 51

a Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001. b In response to
section 3135( b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993, DOE?s Defense Programs established the Small Business Initiative to
facilitate the transfer of technology to small businesses. c Includes only
agreements with nonfederal industrial partners.

d Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory used a cost- shared procurement
contract for its Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative/ PathForward
program to develop advanced computational capabilities for simulating
nuclear weapons testing and predicting the performance, safety, and
reliability of these weapons.

Sources: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.

NNSA officials and laboratory managers identified various advantages and
disadvantages of collaborative research under a CRADA. (See table 3.) An
advantage of collaborative research under a CRADA is often accompanied by a
disadvantage. For example, the ability to leverage research funding, staff,
and equipment can be offset by concerns over a CRADA?s relevance to mission
objectives and the risk inherent in sharing control over the scope of the
research, project time frames, and intellectual property. CRADAs Offer Both

Advantages and Disadvantages

Page 9 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of CRADAs at NNSA Laboratories and
Production Facilities Advantages Disadvantages

 Involves multiple partners and a wider range of technical disciplines to
address technical challenges of mutual interest.

 Leverages NNSA laboratory resources by using partners? scientists,
equipment, and funding to extend research and development capability.

 Enables NNSA laboratories and production facilities to maintain core
competencies in research and manufacturing.

 Aids in the recruitment and retention of talented staff by exposing NNSA
scientists to a broader range of technical challenges.

 Improves the competitive position of U. S. businesses.

 Provides NNSA laboratories with access to companies? proprietary
technology.

 Results in additional industry requests and funding for laboratory
expertise and services and long- term research and development partners.

 Can be used to bring laboratory inventions to the marketplace by providing
?seed money? to develop commercial applications.

 CRADAs compete with DOE?s mission research for funding support and
laboratory resources. Without DOE?s funding, private partners are reluctant
to enter into CRADAs.

 NNSA?s stockpile stewardship program has established schedules for NNSA?s
laboratories to complete work on- such as the W76 stockpile life extension
program by 2007. Laboratory research managers are hesitant to commit any
funding and resources that might be needed to complete critical stockpile
stewardship projects.

 Some of the CRADAs negotiated in the mid- 1990s were primarily designed to
improve the competitive position of a U. S. industry with few benefits for
the NNSA mission. As a result, they diverted DOE resources away from
stockpile stewardship and NNSA?s other primary missions.

 An NNSA laboratory typically has less control over the scope of work and
product delivery time frames for CRADAs than for procurement contracts.

 CRADAs generally take more time to execute than other types of agreements
or contracts because the statement of work, funding, and intellectual
property rights must be negotiated.

Sources: NNSA headquarters and regional officials, NNSA laboratory managers,
and Technology Transfer: Benefits of Cooperative R& D Agreements (GAO/ RCED-
95- 52, Dec. 16, 1994).

Each of the NNSA laboratories we visited provided examples of successful
CRADAs for both the laboratory and the CRADA partner( s). For example, in
1997, Sandia, Lawrence Livermore, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
(a DOE energy science laboratory) entered into a CRADA with a consortium of
microelectronics manufacturers to develop extreme ultraviolet lithography
equipment for making next- generation computer chips with enhanced speed and
memory. Consortium members are providing $250 million to develop this
technology, which is also important for developing advanced computational
capabilities that NNSA needs for its nuclear stockpile stewardship program.

Technology transfer officials at the NNSA laboratories noted that CRADAs
have enhanced their laboratories? research by, for example, bringing
together a wide range of scientific disciplines to address technical
problems or providing NNSA scientists with access to advanced

Page 10 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

technology or manufacturing processes. Sandia officials generally preferred
a CRADA to a work- for- others agreement because CRADA partners actively
participate in the research. Sandia officials told us that the Technology
Partnership Program had been an important catalyst for initiating CRADAs
because it was the laboratories? primary source of financial support in the
early stages of the CRADA project before researchers could demonstrate that
the CRADA would directly benefit a specific DOE program.

However, some DOE managers have questioned the value of certain CRADAs-
particularly some related to the Technology Transfer Initiative in the mid-
1990s- stating that those CRADAs had used scarce resources for projects not
closely tied to NNSA?s mission. Furthermore, negotiating and approving the
terms of a CRADA could take more than 1 year to complete in the early 1990s.
According to Sandia National Laboratories? data, this time has been
substantially reduced- in fiscal year 2000, CRADAs were processed from
initiation to final approval in 86 days, on average, including an average of
4 days for DOE?s review and approval. Laboratory officials attributed this
improved efficiency to the use of a standardized format for these agreements
and the common practice of amending existing CRADAs to broaden the scope of
work in lieu of negotiating a new agreement. In several cases, Sandia used
blanket or

?umbrella? CRADAs to combine a number of different projects with the same
partner into a single agreement.

NNSA laboratory managers identified three primary options for providing
financial and management support for CRADAs:

 Continue to rely primarily on laboratory research managers to determine
whether participating in a CRADA effectively supports their mission
research. In addition to research funds, NNSA?s laboratories have used other
DOE funds, including their ?laboratory- directed research and development?
funds and Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative funds, to support
certain CRADAs. 4 DOE has contributed $19.4 million for active CRADAs at
NNSA laboratories and production facilities in fiscal year 2001.

4 Section 3135 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1993 authorized
the use of laboratory- directed research and development funds to support
CRADAs, provided they meet certain administrative requirements.

Page 11 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

 Set aside a small portion of research funding specifically to provide
initial support for mission- related CRADAs until they show sufficient
potential benefits that program managers would be willing to provide
financial support.

 Establish an advocate within NNSA responsible for facilitating funding for
CRADAs.

The laboratory managers noted that the advocate?s office could be combined
with one of the two funding options. A senior official at NNSA headquarters
stated that the two funding options were reasonable. However, the senior
official preferred to assign responsibility for facilitating CRADAs to a
senior office within NNSA without giving it responsibility for advocacy.

We provided DOE with a draft of this report for its review and comment.
NNSA?s Institutional and Joint Programs Division generally agreed with the
draft report. NNSA also provided comments to improve the report?s technical
accuracy, which we incorporated as appropriate.

To obtain trend data on technology development partnerships, we asked
officials at NNSA and its laboratories to identify the primary types of
technology partnerships that they have used with private entities. We then
developed a data collection instrument to obtain participation and funding
data from NNSA?s three nuclear weapons laboratories and three of its
production facilities from fiscal year 1991 through the second quarter of
fiscal year 2001. To help ensure consistency across locations, we worked
with officials from these laboratories and facilities to establish uniform
definitions and resolve any discrepancies. In addition, we (1) interviewed
NNSA officials at DOE headquarters and DOE?s Albuquerque and Oakland
Operations Offices and (2) visited Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Los Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories to obtain
the views of administrators and scientists about their laboratories?
participation in and funding of technology development partnerships.

To identify the advantages and disadvantages of CRADAs, we interviewed NNSA
officials at DOE headquarters and obtained the views of laboratory
administrators and scientists at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Los
Alamos National Laboratory, and Sandia National Laboratories. We also
interviewed executives of four businesses that participated in at least
Agency Comments

Scope and Methodology

Page 12 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

one CRADA with an NNSA laboratory to obtain their perspective about CRADAs.
We conducted our review from January 2001 through May 2001 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not
independently verify the data provided by NNSA?s laboratories and production
facilities.

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy, the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested
parties. We will make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me
at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report were Richard Cheston,
Sandra Davis, and Timothy Minelli.

Jim Wells Director, Natural Resources

and Environment

Appendix I: NNSA?s Report on Technology Development Partnerships

Page 13 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

NNSA?s report entitled Report to Congress on Technology Partnerships With
Non- federal Entities Within the National Nuclear Security Administration
During Fiscal Year 2000 primarily examined CRADA activities at its
laboratories and production facilities. The report stated that with the
termination of the Technology Partnership Program?s dedicated funding, CRADA
partnerships will obtain either financial support from individual DOE
research programs- ensuring that the project is more clearly linked to DOE?s
mission- or full funding from the private sector partner. NNSA stated that
more than 200 of its 348 CRADAs supported its core missions in fiscal year
2000 and pointed to CRADAdeveloped technologies that benefited both NNSA and
its private partners. For example, a CRADA used NNSA advanced laser
technology to develop an improved laser shot peening process to make
indentations that reduce fatigue in critical metal parts, such as jet engine
fan blades and nuclear waste disposal containers. According to NNSA, the
absence of dedicated funding could also result in fewer CRADAs that provide
only secondary, or spinoff, benefits for its core mission. A separate NNSA
report discussed technical assistance for small businesses, which also was
cut back as the Technology Partnership Program was phased out. 5

NNSA reported that CRADAs are advantageous because they can leverage its
laboratories? resources and bring to bear the expertise of several partners
to address technical challenges. CRADAs also allow for more flexibility in
the treatment of intellectual property than do other types of partnership
agreements. NNSA noted that some laboratory personnel and private sector
partners are skeptical about using CRADAs because they believe that
negotiations take longer than necessary.

Although the congressional mandate directed NNSA to recommend actions that
would make CRADAs more effective in supporting its mission, NNSA made no
recommendations.

5 See Report to Congress on Small Business Participation in National Nuclear
Security Administration Activities (Feb. 2001). Appendix I: NNSA?s Report on
Technology

Development Partnerships

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 14 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 4: Active Technology Development Partnerships With Nonfederal Entities
at NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the
Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

CRADAs 0 13 50 96 159 161 118 83 66 47 26 Technical assistance for small
businesses b b 0 3 15 41 19 10 2 0 0 Work for others c 74 75 55 80 104 110
192 192 276 299 309 Cost- shared procurements d 0 0 0000 04 4 44 Technology
licenses e e e 100 158 239 260 290 312 324 331 User f acilities 0 0 0000 01
1 00

Los Alamos National Laboratory

CRADAs 11 37 65 124 175 165 132 134 130 116 83 Technical assistance for
small businesses b b 22 75 180 85 29 0 0 0 0 Work for others c 20 20 25 21
14 39 50 61 74 81 83 Technology licenses 13 21 34 38 41 49 58 65 97 115 140
User facilities 12 17 22 45 60 47 58 54 31 43 19

Sandia National Laboratories

CRADAs 11 55 123 195 254 253 193 150 154 153 120 Technical assistance for
small businesses b b 0 302 393 322 292 233 257 210 93 Work for others c 0 0
0 22 42 80 126 183 263 351 327 Technology licenses 8 16 32 49 77 178 240 273
313 362 424 User f acilities 00032456 6689 45 3329

Kansas City Plant

CRADAs 00052132 3024 26 2412 Technical assistance for small businesses b b 0
297 269 140 128 92 74 60 42 Work for others c 0 0 0 0 4 12 25 27 16 14 11
Technology l icenses 0 0 0113 66 6 65 User f acilities 0 0 0013 23 4 43

Oak Ridge Y- 12 Plant

CRADAs 5 22 35 28 29 18 8 23 17 7 2 Technical assistance for small
businesses b b 608 943 860 730 433 334 225 217 0 Work for others c 0 13 14
31 40 66 167 221 169 240 57 Technology licenses 12 15 21 25 23 34 36 35 36
37 38 User facilities 0 0 0 21 18 13 15 17 12 16 0

Pantex Plant

CRADAs 0 0 0012 11 1 11 Technical assistance for small businesses b b 025470
2 31 Work for others c 0 0 0056 98 4 21 User f acilities 0 0 0000 01 1 00

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 15 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Fiscal year Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a

All NNSA facilities CRADAs 27 127 273 448 639 631 482 415 394 348 244
Technical assistance for small businesses b b 630 1,622 1,722 1,322 908 669
560 490 136 Work for others c 94 108 94 154 209 313 569 692 802 987 788
Cost- shared procurements d 0 0 0000 04 4 44 Technology licenses 33 52 87
213 300 503 600 669 764 844 938 User facilities 12 17 22 69 103 119 141 165
94 96 51

a Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001. b In response to
section 3135( b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993, DOE?s Defense Programs established the Small Business Initiative to
facilitate and encourage the transfer of technology to small businesses. c
Includes only agreements with nonfederal industrial partners.

d Includes contracts for the Accelerated Strategic Computing Initiative/
PathForward Program. Costshared procurement agreements under the Federal
Acquisition Regulation were used to expedite research and development
contracts. e Data were not readily available.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 16 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 5: Active CRADAs at NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities,
Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs 0 13 40 52 66 28 30 11 14 5 2 b Continuing CRADAs 0 0
10 44 93 133 88 72 52 42 24

Subtotal 0 13 50 96 159 161 118 83 66 47 26 Los Alamos National Laboratory

Newly executed CRADAs 8 31 33 69 68 39 26 45 36 14 1 Continuing CRADAs 3 6
32 55 107 126 106 89 94 102 82

Subtotal 11 37 65 124 175 165 132 134 130 116 83 Sandia National
Laboratories

Newly executed CRADAs 8 38 69 83 65 45 33 30 52 27 17 Continuing CRADAs 3 17
54 112 189 208 160 120 102 126 103

Subtotal 11 55 123 195 254 253 193 150 154 153 120 Kansas City Plant

Newly executed CRADAs 0 0 0 5 16 11 8 7 10 4 1 Continuing CRADAs 0 0 0 0 5
21 22 17 16 20 11

Subtotal 0005 21 32 3024 26 2412 Oak Ridge Y- 12 Plant

Newly executed CRADAs 5 22 35 28 24 13 5 10 1 0 0 Continuing C RADAs 0 0 00
5 5 3131672

Subtotal 5 22 3528 29 18823177 2 Pantex Plant

Newly e xecuted C RADAs 0 0 00 1 1 00 0 00 Continuing C RADAs 0 0 00 0 1 11
1 11

Subtotal 0 0 00 1 2 11 1 11 All NNSA facilities Newly executed CRADAs 21 104
177 237 240 137 102 103 113 50 21 Continuing CRADAs 6 23 96 211 399 494 380
312 281 298 223 Total 27 127 273 448 639 631 482 415 394 348 244

a Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001. b Lawrence
Liverermore subsequently entered into three more CRADAs in the first 3 days
of April 2001. Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 17 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 6: Sources of Funding for CRADAs at NNSA Laboratories and Production
Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Technology Partnership Program $0 $1.6 $22.8 $30.9 $40.5 $34.9 $13.6 $2.1
$1.0 $0 $0 Other DOE sources b 0 0 0.6 2. 2 2.1 2. 7 1.8 2. 2 2.2 2. 3 1.0
Funding from partner( s) 0 0 0 1.9 3. 2 2.4 12.4 28.6 31.3 20.9 2. 8 In-
kind support from partner( s) c ddd d d d ddddd

Subtotal $0 $1.6 $23.4 $35.0 $45.8 $40.0 $27.8 $32.9 $34.5 $23.2 $3.8 Los
Alamos National Laboratory

Technology Partnership $0.2 $4.3 $10.3 e $25.0 e $41.7 $32.9 $13.2 $14.0
$15.6 $2.6 $0 Other DOE sources (planned) b 1.4 2. 2 1.8 4. 7 7.3 12.0 13.4
10.4 12.2 10.9 5. 7 Funding from partner( s) 1. 2 6.1 0. 3 0.6 1. 5 1.9 1. 9
2.3 2. 3 2.6 0. 5 In- kind support from partner( s) c 1.2 5. 7 14.1 36.0
42.7 46.6 43.4 42.5 46.2 35.1 20.4

Subtotal $4.0 $18.3 $26.5 $66.3 $93.2 $93.4 $71.9 $69.2 $76.3 $51.2 $26.6
Sandia National Laboratories

Technology Partnership Program $0 $8.0 $32.0 $71.0 $94.0 $65.0 $25.0 $24.0
$21.0 $3.4 $0 Other DOE sources b 0.2 2. 5 4.0 6. 5 8.0 11.3 12.3 9. 5 9.9
11.8 11.6 Funding from partner( s) 0 4.4 5. 8 10.6 10.6 12.1 27.2 32.8 30.1
38.2 13.6 In- kind support from partner( s) c 0.5 13.2 44.1 79.0 94.6 76.9
77.9 73.3 61.9 41.4 23.0

Subtotal $0.7 $28.1 $85.9 $167.1 $207.2 $165.3 $142.4 $139.6 $122.9 $94.8
$48.2 Kansas City Plant

Technology Partnership Program $0 $0 $0.5 $1.6 $3.0 $3.9 $3.5 $2.2 $3.1 $1.2
$0 Other DOE sources b 000 0 0 0 000. 72. 91. 1 Funding from partner( s) 0 0
0 0 0 0 00. 20. 10. 20 In- kind support from partner( s) c 0 0 0 1. 6 3.0 3.
9 3.5 2. 2 3.1 1. 2 1.1

Subtotal $0 $0 $0.5 $3.2 $6.0 $7.8 $7.0 $4.6 $7.0 $5.5 $2.2 Oak Ridge Y- 12
Plant

Technology Partnership Program $1.0 $5.8 $17.5 $15.7 $25.8 $8.9 $4.2 $5.3
$2.8 $0.3 $0 Other DOE sources ddd d d d ddddd Funding from partner( s) 0
0.3 0 0.1 0. 6 0 0. 1 0.1 0 0 0 In- kind support from partner( s) c 1.5 26.3
30.6 13.3 10.7 3. 4 4.1 4. 0 0.7 0 0

Subtotal $2.5 $32.4 $48.1 $29.1 $37.1 $12.3 $8.4 $9.4 $3.5 $0.3 $0

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 18 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Fiscal year Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a Pantex Plant

Technology Partnership Program $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Other DOE
sources b 000 0 00.3 00000 Funding from partner( s) 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000 In-
kind support from partner( s) c 0 0000. 30. 3000 00

Subtotal $0 $0 $0 $0 $0.3 $0.6 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 All NNSA facilities Technology
Partnership Program $1.2 $19.7 $83.1 $144.2 $205.0 $145.6 $59.5 $47.6 $43.5
$7.5 $0 Other DOE sources b 1.6 4. 7 6.4 13.4 17.4 26.3 27.5 22.1 25.0 27.9
19.4 Funding from partner( s) 1.2 10.8 6. 1 13.2 15.9 16.4 41.6 64.0 63.8
61.9 16.9 In- kind support from partner( s) c 3.2 45.2 88.8 129.9 151.3
131.1 128.9 122.0 111.9 77.7 44.5 Total $7.2 $80.4 $184.4 $300.7 $389.6
$319.4 $257.5 $255.7 $244.2 $175.0 $80.8

a Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001. b Primarily
includes research funds. Some CRADAs at NNSA laboratories have used
laboratorydirected research and development funds. c Planned in- kind
contribution by nonfederal partner( s).

d Data were not readily available. e Planned Technology Partnership Program
funding. Actual data were not readily available.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 19 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 7: Active Agreements to Provide Technical Assistance to Small
Businesses at NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities, Fiscal Year 1993
Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year Facility 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 a Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 0 3 15 41 19 10 2 0 0 Continuing agreements 0 b b
bbbb 0 0

Subtotal 0 3 15 41 19 10 2 0 0 Los Alamos National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements 22 65 129 36 18 0 0 0 0 Continuing agreements 0 10
51 49 11 0 0 0 0

Subtotal 22 75 180 85 29 0 0 0 0 Sandia National Laboratories

Newly executed agreements 0 280 287 232 198 153 175 131 29 Continuing
agreements 0 22 106 90 94 80 82 79 64

Subtotal 0 302 393 322 292 233 257 210 93 Kansas City Plant

Newly executed agreements 0 297 269 140 128 92 74 60 29 Continuing
agreements 0 0 bbb b bb 13

Subtotal 0 297 269 140 128 92 74 60 42 Oak Ridge Y- 12 Plant

Newly executed agreements 513 747 600 454 362 248 156 180 0 Continuing
agreements 95 196 260 276 71 86 69 37 0

Subtotal 608 943 860 730 433 334 225 217 0 Pantex Plant

Newly e xecuted a greements 0 2 5 470231 Continuing a greements 0 0 0 000000

Subtotal 0 2 5 470231 All NNSA facilities Newly executed agreements 535
1,394 1,305 907 732 503 409 374 59 Continuing agreements 95 228 417 415 176
166 151 116 77 Total 630 1,622 1,722 1,322 908 669 560 490 136

Note: In response to section 3135( b) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1993, DOE?s Defense Programs established the Small
Business Initiative to facilitate and encourage the transfer of technology
to small businesses. a Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year
2001.

b Data were not readily available. Source: NNSA laboratories and production
facilities.

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 20 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 8: Active Work- for- Others Agreements at NNSA Laboratories and
Production Facilities, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal
Year 2001

Fiscal year Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed agreements bbb bbbb bbbb Continuing agreements bbb bbbb bbbb

Subtotal 74 75 55 80 104 110 192 192 276 299 309 Los Alamos National
Laboratory

Newly e xecuted a greements 14 11 1388 22 3839 42 3516 Continuing agreements
6 9 12 13 6 17 12 22 32 46 67

Subtotal 20 20 25 21 14 39 50 61 74 81 83 Sandia National Laboratories

Newly executed agreements 0 0 0 13 21 39 54 93 152 155 68 Continuing
agreements 0 0 0 9 21 41 72 90 111 196 259

Subtotal 0 0 0 22 42 80 126 183 263 351 327 Kansas City Plant

Newly executed agreements b b bb 3 10 1818 12 11 2 Continuing agreements b b
bb 1 2 79 4 39

Subtotal b b bb 4 12 2527 16 1411 Oak Ridge Y- 12 Plant

Newly executed agreements bbb bbbb bbbb Continuing agreements bbb bbbb bbbb

Subtotal 0 13 14 31 40 66 167 221 169 240 57 Pantex Plant

Newly e xecuted a greements 0 0 00 5 4 94 3 21 Continuing a greements 0 0 00
0 2 04 1 00

Subtotal 0 0 00 5 6 98 4 21 All NNSA facilities Newly executed agreements
bbb bbbb bbbb

Continuing agreements bbb bbbb bbbb

Total 94 108 94 154 209 313 569 692 802 987 788

Note: Includes only agreements with nonfederal industrial partners. a Data
are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year 2001.

b Data were not readily available. Source: NNSA laboratories and production
facilities.

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 21 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 9: Active Licenses of NNSA Laboratory and Production Facility
Technology, Fiscal Year 1991 Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Fiscal year Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Newly executed licenses b b b 36 57 81 64 49 35 33 13 Continuing licenses b
b b 64 101 158 196 241 277 291 318

Subtotal b b b 100 158 239 260 290 312 324 331 Los Alamos National
Laboratory

Newly executed licenses 6 9 12 6 5 15 11 11 38 30 11 Continuing l icenses 7
12 2232 36 34 4754 59 85129

Subtotal 13 21 34 38 41 49 58 65 97 115 140 Sandia National Laboratories

Newly executed licenses 2 8 17 17 27 102 64 38 49 57 38 Continuing licenses
6 8 15 32 50 76 176 235 264 305 386

Subtotal 8 16 32 49 77 178 240 273 313 362 424 Kansas City Plant

Newly e xecuted l icenses 0 0 01 0 2 31 0 11 Continuing l icenses 0 0 00 1 1
35 6 54

Subtotal 0 0 01 1 3 66 6 65 Oak Ridge Y- 12 Plant

Newly executed licenses 4 4 9 7 7 14 3 7 2 4 1 Continuing l icenses 8 11
1218 16 20 3328 34 3337

Subtotal 12 15 21 25 23 34 36 35 36 37 38 All NNSA facilities Newly executed
licenses 12 21 38 67 96 214 145 106 124 125 64 Continuing licenses 21 31 49
146 204 289 455 563 640 719 874 Total 33 52 87 213 300 503 600 669 764 844
938

Note: Pantex did not have any technology licenses in effect between fiscal
years 1991 and 2001. a Data are for the first 2 quarters of fiscal year
2001.

b Data were not readily available on the number of continuing licenses.
Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 22 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Table 10: Funding Provided by Nonfederal Entities for Technology Development
Partnerships With NNSA Laboratories and Production Facilities, Fiscal Year
1991 Through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year 2001

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year Facility 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
a Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

CRADAs $0 $0 $0 $1.9 $3.2 $2.4 $12.4 $28.6 $31.3 $20.9 $2.8 Work for others
4. 1 4.6 4. 0 15.5 31.8 20.6 16.4 43.8 70.5 19.6 9. 2 Cost- shared contracts
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8.1 11.2 12.8 4. 0 Technology licenses 0.4 0. 4 0.4 0. 6 1.1
1. 3 2.3 2. 6 2.2 3. 6 b User facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Los Alamos National Laboratory

CRADAs 1. 2 6.1 0. 3 0.6 1. 5 1.9 1. 9 2.3 2. 3 2.6 0. 5 Work for others b b
8.8 4. 1 8.6 12.7 16.8 13.3 16.7 14.8 4. 3 Technology licenses 0.1 0. 2 0.1
0. 2 0.1 0. 3 0.4 0. 7 0.9 1. 3 1.0 User facilities 0 0.2 1. 6 1.6 1. 1 0.7
2. 3 0.8 1. 0 0.6 0

Sandia National Laboratories

CRADAs 0 4.4 5. 8 10.6 10.6 12.1 27.2 32.8 30.1 38.2 13.6 Work for others 0
0 0 0.2 14.0 14.3 17.1 22.7 24.6 29.7 15.4 Technology licenses 0 0. 1 0 0. 1
0.4 0. 7 1.7 0. 9 1.2 2. 3 1.6 User facilities bbb bb b bbbbb

Kansas City Plant

CRADAs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 2 0. 1 0. 2 0 Work for others b bbb 0.4 0. 4 0.5 0.
9 1.0 0. 9 0.1 Technology licenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0. 1 0 0. 1 0 User
facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oak Ridge Y- 12 Plant

CRADAs 0 0.3 0 0.1 0. 6 0 0. 1 0.1 0 0 0 Work for others 0 1.2 0. 5 0.9 0. 5
2.2 7. 0 10.9 8. 0 2.7 0. 4 Technology licenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0. 1 0 0
User facilities c cc 0.1 0 0 0 0.1 0 0 0

Pantex Plant

CRADAs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Work for others 0 0 0 0 0 0.1 0. 2 0.2 0. 1 0 0
User facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

All NNSA facilities CRADAs $1.2 $10.8 $6.1 $13.2 $15.9 $16.4 $41.6 $64.0
$63.8 $61.9 $16.9 Work for others $4.1 $5.8 $13.3 $20.7 $55.3 $50.3 $58.0
$91.8 $120.9 $67.7 $29.4 Cost- shared contracts $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8.1
$11.2 $12.8 $4.0 Technology licenses $0.5 $0.7 $0.5 $0.9 $1.6 $2.3 $4.5 $4.4
$4.4 $7.3 $2.6 User facilities $0 $0.2 $1.6 $1.7 $1.1 $0.7 $2.3 $0.9 $1.0
$0.6 $0

Appendix II: The Technology Development Activities of NNSA?s Laboratories
and Production Facilities

Page 23 GAO- 01- 568 DOE's Technology Partnerships

Note: Technical assistance for small businesses is excluded because small
businesses do not contribute funding. a Data are for the first 2 quarters of
fiscal year 2001.

b Data are not available. c Not applicable.

Source: NNSA laboratories and production facilities.

(360095)

The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:

Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

Contact one:

 Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm

 E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***