Department of Energy: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and	 
Addressing Major Management Challenges (29-JUN-01, GAO-01-823).  
								 
This report reviews the Department of Energy's (DOE) fiscal year 
2002 performance report and fiscal 2002 performance plan as	 
required by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to
assess DOE's progress in achieving five key outcomes identified  
as important mission areas for the agency. GAO found that DOE's  
performance report does not always effectively demonstrate the	 
agency's progress in achieving its outcomes because it includes  
(1) unclear, jargon-laden measures that do not always support	 
superceding objectives, (2) performance assessments that are	 
inconsistent with actual performance,(3) objectives with	 
insufficient performance measures, and (4) a lack of explanation 
for shortfalls in performance. In its fiscal year 2002		 
performance plan, DOE generally outlines broad, clear strategies 
for achieving the objectives under the selected outcomes.	 
However, DOE does not consistently provide detailed, specific	 
actions required to achieve some of the outcomes. DOE's fiscal	 
year 2000 performance and accountability report and fiscal year  
2002 performance plan present an overall improvement over	 
previous reports and plans. Specifically, the fiscal year 2000	 
report organizes information by departmental decision unit to	 
better track with the budget, and it includes improved linkages  
between objectives and funding. Similarly, the fiscal year 2002  
plan includes general performance goals that are linked to each  
budgetary decision unit. However, both the report and the plan	 
continue to have some weaknesses. In particular, the report does 
not always provide a clear picture of how much progress has	 
actually been made, nor does it always outline detailed 	 
strategies for making further progress when targets were not met.
In addition, the report continues to provide minimal information 
on procedures to validate and verify performance information.	 
Similarly, the plan does not provide adequate explanations for	 
changes made to objectives, goals, and measures, and it often	 
contains vague descriptions, such as "promote" and "enhance", for
some strategies that make it difficult to get a clear picture of 
DOE's intended performance. Finally, DOE does not disclose data  
limitations in either the performance plan or the report for the 
key outcomes.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-823 					        
    ACCNO:   A01485						        
  TITLE:     Department of Energy: Status of Achieving Key Outcomes   
             and Addressing Major Management Challenges                       
     DATE:   06/29/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Performance measures				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     DOE Stockpile Stewardship Program			 
	     DOE/Navy Naval Reactors Program			 
	     GPRA						 
	     Government Performance and Results Act		 

******************************************************************
** 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-01-823
     
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.
S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

June 2001 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges

GAO- 01- 823

Page 1 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

June 29, 2001 The Honorable Fred Thompson Ranking Minority Member Committee
on Governmental Affairs United States Senate

Dear Senator Thompson: As you requested, we reviewed the Department of
Energy?s (DOE) fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002
performance plan required by the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA) to assess the agency?s progress in achieving selected key
outcomes that you identified as important mission areas for the agency. 1
These selected key outcomes are

 energy systems are secure, competitive, and serve the needs of the public;
 energy use is more efficient and productive, while environmental impacts

are limited;  contaminated nuclear weapons and research sites are cleaned
up;  national and global nuclear security threats are reduced; and 
science and technology innovations are achieved at reduced costs.

As agreed, using the selected key outcomes for DOE as a framework, we (1)
assessed the progress DOE has made in achieving these outcomes and the
strategies the agency has in place to achieve them; and (2) compared DOE?s
fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan
with the agency?s prior year performance report and plan for these outcomes.
Additionally, we agreed to analyze how DOE addressed its major management
challenges, including the governmentwide high- risk areas of strategic human
capital management and information security, which we and DOE?s Office of
Inspector General (OIG) identified. Appendix I provides detailed information
on how DOE addressed these challenges.

1 This report is one of a series of reports on the 24 Chief Financial
Officers (CFO) Act agencies? fiscal year 2000 performance reports and fiscal
year 2002 performance plans.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Generally, in its fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report,
DOE states that it is making overall progress in achieving its selected key
outcomes while recognizing that, in some areas, more work remains to be
done. However, the performance report does not always effectively
demonstrate the Department?s progress in achieving its key outcomes because
it includes (1) unclear, jargon- laden measures that do not always support
superceding objectives; (2) performance assessments that are inconsistent
with actual performance; (3) objectives with insufficient performance
measures; and (4) a lack of explanation for shortfalls in performance. In
its fiscal year 2002 performance plan, DOE generally outlines broad, clear
strategies for achieving the objectives under the selected key outcomes.
However, DOE does not consistently provide detailed, specific actions
required to achieve some of the outcomes. Specifically,

 Planned Outcome: Energy Systems Are Secure, Competitive, and Serve the
Needs of the Public. DOE reported continued progress toward achieving this
outcome. However, it is impossible to tell precisely how much progress has
been made because the annual performance goals and measures included in the
report are often unclear and sometimes do not support their superceding
objectives. DOE provides a multitude of strategies for achieving this
outcome for fiscal year 2002 and while in some cases, these strategies are
clear, in most instances the language is vague and is merely a restatement
of the general performance goal .

 Planned Outcome: Energy Use Is More Efficient and Productive, While
Environmental Impacts Are Limited. DOE also reported continued progress
toward achieving this outcome. However, DOE considers this key outcome as an
objective under the outcome discussed above- ensuring that energy systems
are secure, competitive, and serve the needs of the public. Consequently,
many of the concerns- such as lack of clarity- that we have identified for
the prior outcome also apply to this one. Accordingly, it is difficult to
determine what progress DOE has made toward achieving this outcome and how
the Department?s efforts contributed to this outcome. In contrast to the
above outcome, in most cases, the strategies described for this outcome for
fiscal year 2002 are detailed, clear, and relevant. Moreover, the strategies
provide an important conceptual linkage between the more general strategic
objectives and the annual performance goals.

 Planned Outcome: Contaminated Nuclear Weapons and Research Sites Are
Cleaned Up. DOE generally reported progress toward achieving this key
outcome. Overall, DOE?s cleanup performance goals clearly supported Results
in Brief

Page 3 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

their respective objectives, were relevant, and were quantified, where
appropriate. However, DOE did not effectively demonstrate progress in every
case. In some cases, the assessment of performance did not match actual
performance; inadequate information was provided for specific measurement
data that appeared questionable; and inadequate explanations were provided
for significant shortfalls in performance. Generally, DOE provided relevant
strategies for fiscal year 2002 for this outcome. However, DOE did not
always highlight known problems with its strategies and did not always
address how it will correct performance shortfalls from the fiscal year 2000
report for this outcome.

 Planned Outcome: Further Strengthen National Security and Reduce the
Global Danger From Weapons of Mass Destruction. Overall, DOE reported mixed
progress in its efforts to achieve this key outcome. For example, while DOE
was able to certify that the nation?s nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe
and reliable, its Stockpile Stewardship Program continued to have a mixed
record in meeting its goals and targets. Similarly, while DOE reported
progress in reducing the global danger from weapons of mass destruction
through its nonproliferation and international safety programs, it also
reported a mixed record for its fissile materials disposition programs.
However, assessing DOE?s progress for this outcome is not always possible,
because in some cases goals and measures are missing for important efforts,
some measures are process- oriented, and some measures do not clearly link
to the relevant strategic objective. For fiscal year 2002, DOE will continue
with many of the strategies that are in place for fiscal year 2001 for this
outcome. However, some key strategies that should be included under this
outcome are missing, such as a strategy with dedicated objectives and
measures for the establishment of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA).

 Planned Outcome: Science and Technology Innovations Are Achieved at
Reduced Costs. DOE reported that it was making progress toward achieving
this key outcome. However, it is impossible to tell precisely how much
progress has been made because annual performance goals and measures for
this outcome vary in clarity and descriptiveness, and the level of detail in
the results sections of the report varies by individual program, with little
consistency among them. DOE?s science and technology- related strategies in
its fiscal year 2002 plan do not specifically address whether innovations
will be achieved at reduced costs. Instead, the strategies address such
topics as leadership, foundations, and break throughs in the physical
sciences; environmental protection and cleanup; exploring matter and energy
at the atomic scale; and providing the

Page 4 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

infrastructure and workforce to support the physical, biological,
environmental, and computational sciences .

DOE?s fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report and fiscal year
2002 performance plan represent an overall improvement over previous reports
and plans. Specifically, the fiscal year 2000 report organizes information
by departmental decision unit to better track with the budget, and it
includes improved linkages between objectives and funding. Similarly, the
fiscal year 2002 plan includes general performance goals that are linked to
each budgetary decision unit. However, both the report and the plan continue
to have some weaknesses. In particular, the report does not always provide a
clear picture of how much progress has actually been made, nor does it
always outline detailed strategies for making further progress when targets
were not met. In addition, the report continues to provide minimal
information on procedures to validate and verify performance information.
Similarly, the plan does not provide adequate explanations for changes made
to objectives, goals, and measures, and it often contains vague
descriptions, such as ?promote? and

?enhance,? for some strategies that make it difficult to get a clear picture
of the Department?s intended performance. Finally, DOE does not disclose
data limitations in either the performance plan or the report for the key
outcomes.

Most of the major management challenges identified by GAO have been included
as departmental challenges in DOE?s fiscal year 2000 report and fiscal year
2002 plan. However, at the outcome level, DOE?s treatment of these
management challenges varies greatly, and few if any details are included in
the report or plan that explain how much progress DOE has made in addressing
these challenges or how these challenges will be addressed in the future.
For example, in the fiscal year 2002 plan, under DOE?s science and
technology outcome, the importance of the scientific workforce is addressed
as a strategic human capital management challenge and some targets have been
outlined. However, for the other key outcomes, there are generally no
objectives, goals, or measures related to the strategic human capital
management challenge in either the report or the plan. Similarly, although
DOE reports that it is making progress in improving information security,
some of DOE?s performance measures are process- oriented and do not always
provide an assessment of real, meaningful, and measurable improvements in
information security. Moreover, most of DOE?s performance measures for
fiscal year 2002 for this challenge are still under development.

Page 5 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

We provided a copy of a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment.
DOE officials generally agreed with the information presented in the report.

GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking,
management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results
and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable information on
the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been provided since
federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA, annual performance
plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the public of (1) the annual
performance goals for agencies? major programs and activities, (2) the
measures that will be used to gauge performance, (3) the strategies and
resources required to achieve the performance goals, and (4) the procedures
that will be used to verify and validate performance information. These
annual plans, issued soon after transmittal of the president?s budget,
provide a direct linkage between an agency?s longer term goals and mission
and day- to- day activities. 2 Annual performance reports are to
subsequently report on the degree to which performance goals were met. The
issuance of the agencies? performance reports, due by March 31, represents a
new and potentially more substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA-
the opportunity to assess federal agencies? actual performance for the prior
fiscal year and to consider what steps are needed to improve performance and
reduce costs in the future. 3

DOE?s missions are to foster a reliable and sustainable energy system,
maintain the nation?s nuclear weapons capabilities, clean up the
contamination resulting from prior nuclear weapons activities, and promote
U. S. leadership in science and technology. DOE also works with the
Departments of Defense and State to help prevent the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. In the post- Cold War
environment, securing U. S. nuclear weapons materials and information
remains vital to U. S. national interests. To carry out its missions, DOE
has been appropriated about $17 billion annually in recent years and has
almost 16,000 federal employees. The Department has more than 50 major
facilities in 35 states. DOE contracts for the management

2 The fiscal year 2002 performance plan is the fourth of these annual
reports under GPRA. 3 The fiscal year 2000 performance report is the second
of these annual reports under GPRA. Background

Page 6 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

and operation of its major facilities- including its national laboratories,
nuclear weapons production facilities, and those facilities undergoing
environmental cleanup- and has more than 100,000 prime contractor employees
at its facilities. In fiscal year 1999, DOE obligated about $15.5 billion to
contracts. Organizationally, DOE is structured along four business lines to
carry out its four primary functions- Energy Resources, National Nuclear
Security, Environmental Quality, and Science. DOE?s GPRA- related documents
are also organized around these four business lines.

This section discusses our analysis of DOE?s performance in achieving its
selected key outcomes and the strategies the agency has in place,
particularly strategic human capital management 4 and information
technology, for accomplishing these outcomes. In discussing these outcomes,
we provide information from our prior work on the extent to which the agency
has provided assurance that the performance information it is reporting is
credible.

It its fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report, DOE reports
continued progress toward achieving its outcome of ensuring that energy
systems are secure, competitive, and serve the needs of the public- which is
the key outcome under DOE?s Energy Resources business line. However, while
DOE may be making progress toward achieving this outcome, it is impossible
to tell precisely how much progress has been made based on the information
presented in the report. This is because annual performance goals and
measures are often not clear and sometimes do not seem to support their
superceding objectives. For example, for this outcome DOE presents the
strategic objective to ?develop alternative transportation fuels and more
efficient vehicles that can reduce year 2010 projected oil imports? by 5
percent.? The Department supports this objective with four performance goals
for fiscal year 2000, such as

?complete solicitation for, and selection of, candidate industrial teams for
the Entry Entrance Coproduction Plant Project?.? Although DOE states that it
has met this goal, it is difficult to tell how much closer the
accomplishment of this goal brings the Department to meeting its

4 Key elements of modern human capital management include strategic human
capital planning and organizational alignment; leadership continuity and
succession planning; acquiring and developing staffs whose size, skills, and
deployment meet agency needs; and creating results- oriented organizational
cultures. Assessment of DOE?s

Progress and Strategies in Achieving Selected Key Outcomes

Secure, Competitive Energy Systems Serving the Public

Page 7 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

objective of reducing oil imports by 5 percent. In addition, the achievement
of this outcome relies on strategic objectives, such as

?boosting the nation?s production of domestic oil,? that are determined more
by market forces than DOE?s actions. Although the Department discusses the
influence of factors such as world oil prices in its fiscal year 2002
performance plan, these factors are not mentioned in the accountability
report. Thus, it is unclear whether DOE considered them when assessing the
relevance of its performance goals in achieving its longer term strategic
objectives.

DOE?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan describes a multitude of strategies
for achieving secure and competitive energy systems that serve the needs of
the public. 5 These strategies include (1) conducting research and
development to increase the generating capacity and use of renewable energy
system; (2) maintaining an effective Strategic Petroleum Reserve; (3)
collaborating with industry to develop large, high efficiency, advanced
power systems; (4) performing research and development to improve the
performance of older fossil and nuclear power plants; and (5) promoting the
use of alternative fuel vehicles in selected markets and increasing
refueling infrastructure for alternative fuels. In some cases, these
strategies provide a clear description of DOE?s approach for reaching its
general performance goals. For example, for its general goal, ?conducting

R& D [research and development] to increase the use of renewable,
distributed and hybrid energy systems,? the Department provides a strategy
that seeks to improve the reliability of the electricity infrastructure
system through ?development of real time control and information systems?
and ?increasing the production of high temperature superconducting wires.?
This strategy provides the detail necessary to understand the types of
research the Department is pursing to achieve this goal. However, for most
of the strategies within this outcome, the plan uses language that is vague
and seems little more than a restatement of a general performance goal. For
instance, one of the Department?s general performance goals is to ?enhance
the economics and environmental performance of electricity generation by
expanding the use of multiproduct facilities that can also produce heat,
clean fuels, and/ or chemical products.? The Department?s strategy for
reaching this goal is to ?promote

power systems R& D [research and development] that incorporates a focused
and collaborative effort between government and industry to

5 For this particular outcome, we cite descriptions of general performance
goals as strategies because they explain in general terms how DOE plans to
achieve this outcome.

Page 8 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

achieve the environmental and economic goals of the technologies.? This
description provides little information about the steps DOE intends to take
or its intended level of effort in this area. In those cases where the
Department describes its strategy it uses words such as ?developing,?
?promoting,? or ?enhancing? without specific details about the actions that
will be taken, consequently, almost any action DOE takes could probably
satisfy the strategy.

In its fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report, DOE reports
continued progress toward achieving its outcome to increase the efficiency
and productivity of energy use, while limiting environmental impacts. In the
fiscal year 2000 report, this key outcome is included as one of the
objectives under the outcome discussed above. Consequently, many of the
concerns- such as lack of clarity- that we have identified for the prior
outcome also apply to this one. For example, in its report, DOE presents for
this outcome, the strategic objective ?by 2010, improve the building stock
by reducing annual energy consumption by 2 quadrillion Btu relative to what
would have been consumed.? DOE supports this objective with five performance
goals such as ?recruit 5 utility partners to promote Energy Star products;
an additional 2,100 retail stores to promote Energy Star products; and 40
window partners to promote Energy Star windows.? However, this goal appears
to be remote from and indirectly related to its superceding objective, and
it is difficult to tell how meeting this goal will bring the Department
closer to achieving its objective. Moreover, several of the performance
goals under this outcome entail significant involvement of private industry
or academia. It is therefore difficult to determine, based on the material
DOE presents in the performance report, precisely what the Department?s
contribution was to the achievement of this outcome. As a result, the report
does not provide a good indicator of what DOE has accomplished to achieve
this outcome.

To achieve this outcome, DOE includes several key strategies in its fiscal
year 2002 performance plan, including: (1) conducting research and
development to assist the introduction of lightweight materials and fuel
cells for vehicles of the future; (2) developing products that increase the
efficiency of residential and commercial buildings; and (3) developing
technologies, as well as providing financial and technical assistance, that
will assist energy- intensive industries such as agriculture and steel. In
most cases, these strategies clearly describe the Department?s approach for
achieving its general performance goals for this outcome. For example, the
performance goal, ?designing and delivering the vehicles of the future,?
contains a strategy that will, among other things, focus on the use of
Efficiency of Energy Use

and Limiting Environmental Impacts

Page 9 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

lightweight materials and enhance marketability through decreases in battery
costs for electric vehicles and the cost of fuel cell systems. This strategy
provides a clear picture of the technologies that the Department has
targeted to achieve its performance goal. Most of the strategies for this
outcome provide a level of detail that helps the reader understand how the
Department intends to reach its goals and what collaborative efforts DOE
plans to undertake with other entities to achieve this outcome. Moreover,
the strategies provide an important conceptual linkage between the more
general strategic objectives and the more narrow annual performance goals.

DOE reported progress toward clean up of its contaminated nuclear weapons
and research sites, which is the key outcome under the Department?s
Environmental Quality business line. In its fiscal year 2000 performance and
accountability report, DOE claimed success in meeting its annual performance
measures for five of the six strategic environmental quality objectives.
Overall, DOE?s cleanup performance goals clearly supported their respective
objectives and represented both final outcome and intermediate annual goals
used to track progress in an ongoing cleanup effort that will take decades
to complete. The annual performance goals used were relevant and, where
appropriate, quantified. For example, under the objective ?to clean up as
many as possible of the Department?s 44 remaining contaminated geographic
sites by 2006,? DOE reported progress in achieving this objective by, among
other things, completing cleanup at two geographic sites and deploying 202
new technologies that will expedite other site cleanup efforts. Under
another objective, ?to safely and expeditiously dispose of waste generated
by nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear research and development programs,?
DOE reported exceeding waste- volume disposal goals for various types of
radioactive wastes and resolving delays that prevented meeting goals for
waste shipments to the newly opened repository in New Mexico.

While DOE?s performance measures were generally relevant and appropriate, we
noted three areas of weakness. First, in some cases, DOE?s assessment of
performance measures did not match actual performance. For example, DOE
reported meeting a measure to complete cleanup at two geographic sites,
despite noting that additional work was identified at one of those sites. We
question whether DOE should count as complete any site where additional work
was identified. Second, DOE did not always provide adequate information on
what efforts it undertook to ensure data validation and verification-
especially for some site- related Cleanup of Contaminated

Nuclear Weapons and Research Sites

Page 10 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

measurement data that appeared questionable. For example, DOE did not
discuss the reliability of the reported number for new technology
deployments- which was triple the goal. We have previously noted problems
with verification of site- reported new technology deployments and whether
they meet the Department?s criteria for counting as full deployments. 6
Third, DOE did not provide adequate explanation for some significant
shortfalls in performance. For example, under its objective to reduce the
most serious risks first, DOE reported that progress in a key goal- moving
spent nuclear fuel to dry storage- was below expectations. DOE explained
that ?only one transfer was completed because of multiple operational and
regulatory issues.? In fiscal year 1999, DOE stated that failure to meet the
same measure was due to activities being greatly affected by a nuclear
safety issue. Therefore, it is not clear whether DOE missed its target in
fiscal year 2000 because of new problems or because of the continuation of
problems from the previous year.

Generally, DOE?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan includes strategies for
the Environmental Quality business line that focus on activities for six
objectives and provide brief discussions of priorities, program direction,
and collaboration with other agencies. For example, for the technology
development and deployment objective, the plan states ?investments in
science and technology will continue to be planned and managed in an
interactive, coordinated, participatory relationship with EM cleanup project
managers and stakeholders.? Activities will not be funded unless they
address priority needs, reduce the cost of cleanup projects and
technological risk, accelerate and increase technology deployment, or
contribute to a targeted scientific research agenda. However, we noted two
areas of weakness in DOE?s fiscal year 2002 strategies for achieving the
objectives under this key outcome. First, DOE did not always highlight known
problems with its strategies. For example, under the waste management
objective, the plan stated that DOE would continue to ship nuclear waste to
New Mexico for disposal and continue operations to produce disposal- ready,
high- level waste canisters. However, the plan did not mention the obstacles
to the nuclear waste shipments or problems encountered with the Hanford site
high- level waste stabilization project that were discussed in the fiscal
year 2000 performance report. Similarly, the plan does not address DOE?s
ongoing problems with development of alternatives to the failed tank waste
separation project at the Savannah

6 Nuclear Waste: Further Actions Needed to Increase the Use of Innovative
Cleanup Technologies (GAO/ RCED- 98- 249, Sept. 25, 1998).

Page 11 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

River site. Both GAO and the National Research Council have reported
management problems with this project. 7 Second, DOE?s strategies did not
always address how the Department would correct performance shortfalls that
were very briefly addressed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report. For
example, DOE reported shortfalls under its objective to

?reduce risks to workers?? but offered limited corrective action plans for
the two goals under this objective. The Department claimed that the

?operational and regulatory issues for the spent nuclear fuel transfer
problem? have been ?resolved? and that ?recovery plans are being developed?
to meet commitments to stabilize the inventory of plutonium. Such corrective
action statements do not provide information as to the nature of DOE?s
corrective efforts and do not convey the extent to which further problems
may be experienced in meeting these goals and the related objective. In
fact, the Department?s baselines and outside reviews indicate that DOE is
not likely to meet its plutonium stabilization goals at the Rocky Flats
Environmental Technology Site. Moreover, we recently reported that the Rocky
Flats plutonium stabilization program was a significant and complex
challenge and that there was significant uncertainty as to whether the
plutonium stabilization program would successfully meet its milestones. 8

Overall, DOE reported mixed progress in its efforts to further strengthen
national security and reduce the global danger from weapons of mass
destruction, which is the key outcome under its National Nuclear Security
business line. DOE?s efforts toward achieving this key outcome included the
Stockpile Stewardship Program, security improvements, the Naval Reactors
program, and nonproliferation and international nuclear security efforts. 9
DOE reported progress for many of these efforts but also highlighted the
need for further work in the same areas. For example, although DOE was able
to certify that the nation?s nuclear weapons

7 Nuclear Waste: Process to Remove Radioactive Waste From Savannah River
Tanks Fails to Work (GAO/ RCED- 99- 69, Apr. 30, 1999). Alternatives for
High- Level Waste Salt Processing at the Savannah River Site, Committee on
Cesium Processing Alternatives for High- Level Waste at the Savannah River
Site, National Research Council (2000). 8 Nuclear Cleanup: Progress Made at
Rocky Flats, but Closure by 2006 Is Unlikely, and Costs May Increase (GAO-
01- 284, Feb. 28, 2001).

9 Most of these efforts fall under the responsibility of the newly created
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), although DOE?s Security and
Emergency Operations Office has the lead role in developing security policy
and overseeing security- related functions. National Nuclear Security

and the Global Danger from Weapons of Mass Destruction

Page 12 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

stockpile remains safe and reliable, its Stockpile Stewardship Program
continued to have a mixed record in meeting its strategic goals and
performance targets. The Department reported meeting its goals for some of
its most important programs and projects such as tritium production and
maintaining testing readiness at the Nevada test site. Nevertheless, the
Department also reported that for the second straight year it had not been
able to meet all of its weapons maintenance and refurbishment schedules and
that not all of its facilities required by the Stockpile Stewardship Program
were fully operational. In the security area, DOE reported that it was
making progress in improving the security of its nuclear materials,
facilities, and sensitive information. While progress is evident, DOE also
acknowledges that many actions have to be fully implemented, finalized, and
allowed to mature. We note, however, that implementation has historically
been the weak link in improving DOE security. 10 Many of the policies,
procedures, and technologies mentioned will have to be fully implemented and
sustained throughout DOE to show meaningful results. Finally, DOE reported
that it had made progress in reducing the global danger from weapons of mass
destruction through its nonproliferation and international safety programs.
DOE noted particular progress in supporting arms control efforts, developing
nonproliferation technology, minimizing the risks of proliferation from the
former Soviet Union, and improving the safety of Soviet- designed reactors.
However, DOE reported a more mixed record of progress in its fissile
materials disposition

10 Nuclear Security: Information on DOE?s Requirements for Protecting and
Controlling Classified Documents (GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 47, July 11, 2000);
Department of Energy: National Security Controls Over Contractors Traveling
to Foreign Countries Need Strengthening (GAO/ RCED- 00- 140, June 26, 2000);
Information Security: Vulnerabilities in DOE?s Systems for Unclassified
Civilian Research (GAO/ AIMD- 00- 140, June 9, 2000); Nuclear Security:
Security Issues at DOE and Its Newly Created National Nuclear Security
Administration (GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 123, Mar. 14, 2000); Department of Energy:
Views on DOE?s Plan to Establish the National Nuclear Security
Administration (GAO/ T- RCED- 00- 113, Mar. 2, 2000); Nuclear Security:
Improvements Needed in DOE?s Safeguards and Security Oversight (GAO/ RCED-
0062, Feb. 24, 2000); Department of Energy: Key Factors Underlying Security
Problems at DOE Facilities (GAO/ T- RCED- 99- 159, Apr. 20, 1999); and
Department of Energy: DOE Needs to Improve Controls Over Foreign Visitors to
Weapons Laboratories (GAO/ T- RCED- 99- 28, Oct. 14, 1998).

Page 13 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

programs, an area DOE recognizes as a departmental challenge. 11 DOE
reported continued problems with access to Russian facilities and slower
than expected progress in the design of U. S. plutonium disposition
facilities.

However, DOE?s reported progress for the national security outcome was not
always clear because of several shortcomings in the Department?s goals,
objectives, and measures. First, in some cases, there are missing goals and
measures for important efforts under this outcome. For example, there is no
explanation, other than the acknowledgement of some organizational and
logistical issues, and no goals or measures that focus on fully establishing
NNSA and implementing NNSA- led initiatives in the areas of reorganization,
human capital, and planning and budgeting. Also, while the report refers to
the important role for human capital in maintaining the vitality of DOE?s
national security enterprise, it contains no direct human capital
performance measures for the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Second, some of
DOE?s measures are processoriented and do not always provide an assessment
of real, meaningful, and measurable improvements in performance. For
example, DOE?s Office of Counterintelligence reported that it performed 11
inspections during fiscal year 2000, but it failed to note what security
improvements resulted from these inspections. Third, DOE uses some
performance measures that fail to clearly state how they link to the
relevant strategic objective. For example, DOE fails to explain how the
installation of safety parameter display systems and simulators improves the
safety of Soviet- designed reactors. Likewise, the Department does not
explain the roles that the planned mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility and
the pit disassembly and conversion facility will play in the disposition of
excess plutonium. Without detailed knowledge of these programs, these
measures have limited value. Finally, DOE did not provide much information
on actions to validate and verify the reported progress or how the
Department will collaborate with other public and private entities for the
national securityrelated outcome. This is especially notable in the
nonproliferation and

11 Nuclear Nonproliferation: Security of Russia?s Nuclear Material
Improving; Further Enhancements Needed (GAO- 01- 312, Feb. 28, 2001);
Nuclear Nonproliferation: Implications of the U. S. Purchases of Russian
Highly Enriched Uranium (GAO- 01- 148, Dec. 15, 2000); Nuclear
Nonproliferation: Limited Progress in Improving Nuclear Material Security in
Russia and the Newly Independent States (GAO/ RCED/ NSIAD- 00- 82, Mar. 6,
2000); Weapons of Mass Destruction: U. S. Efforts to Reduce Threats from the
Former Soviet Union (GAO/ T- NSIAD/ RCED- 00- 119, Mar. 6, 2000); Nuclear
Nonproliferation: Status of Transparency Measures for U. S. Purchase of
Russian Highly Enriched Uranium and (GAO/ RCED- 99- 194, Sept. 22, 1999).

Page 14 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

international nuclear safety strategic objectives, where DOE? s programs are
part of a much broader, multiorganizational U. S. government effort.

DOE?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan continues with many of the
strategies that were in place in fiscal year 2001. DOE?s discussion of
general goals in the fiscal year 2002 plan is a useful addition to
understanding its programs. However, despite progress in outlining
strategies toward its general goals, DOE?s strategies for measuring progress
toward more specific objectives continue to have shortcomings. For example,
while the fiscal year 2002 plan mentions the creation of NNSA and notes that
ongoing high- level reviews of national security have the potential to
affect performance goals for fiscal year 2002 and beyond, the plan does not
discuss this as a challenge, nor does it include any dedicated performance
objectives or measures for establishing NNSA. This is surprising because
NNSA is in the process of implementing changes to its management, planning
and budgeting, organizational alignment, and human capital that have the
potential to address some of the major management challenges that we and
others have identified at DOE. Similarly, DOE?s strategy for measuring two
of its most important Stockpile Stewardship objectives- conducting campaigns
12 and ensuring the vitality of its national security enterprise- raises
questions. DOE proposes measuring these goals through meeting (1) milestones
in 17 campaign plans and (2) facility operating plans and construction
schedules in facility operation plans. While our recent review noted that
DOE has a multitude of plans and planning levels, historically DOE?s
planning efforts have not been integrated and have not been linked or
integrated with management controls such as budgets and contracts. 13
Although there are planning and budgeting initiatives underway at NNSA to
correct these shortcomings, there are no objectives or performance measures
included in the fiscal year 2002 plan for these initiatives. Until these
planning and budgeting initiatives are successfully implemented, DOE?s
existing plans and milestones may not be adequate indicators of performance.

12 Campaigns are technically challenging, multiyear, multifunctional efforts
conducted across the nuclear weapons complex. They are designed to develop
and maintain the critical capabilities needed to enable the continued
certification of the stockpile into the foreseeable future, without
underground testing. Campaigns have milestones and specific end- dates or
goals, effectively focusing research and development activities on clearly
defined deliverables.

13 Nuclear Weapons: Improved Management Needed to Implement Stockpile
Stewardship Program Effectively (GAO- 01- 48, Dec. 14, 2000).

Page 15 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

DOE?s fiscal year 2000 performance and accountability report indicates that
the Department is making progress toward achieving the outcome of improving
the management of its research activities at reduced costs, which is a key
outcome under the Science business line. In its fiscal year 2000 report, DOE
states that it met or exceeded all but one of its seven goals related to
this outcome. The goals for this outcome addressed a range of activities
from Fusion Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, Basic
Energy Sciences, and Advanced Computing Research. For the goal that was
?nearly met,? DOE provided a plan of action to address the increased demand
for computer resources. However, while DOE may be making progress toward
achieving science and technology innovations, it is impossible to tell
precisely how much progress has been made based on the information presented
in the fiscal year 2000 performance report. This is because annual
performance goals and measures for this outcome vary in clarity and
descriptiveness, and the level of detail in the results sections vary by
program with little consistency among them.

Although Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance requires that
performance measures be described in terms understandable to the casual
reader, DOE has not applied this requirement consistently to its
sciencerelated outcome. For example, one of the strategic objectives that
supports this outcome is to ?manage the national laboratories, scienceuser
facilities, and other DOE research providers and research facilities in a
more integrated, responsive, and cost- effective way, building on unique
core strengths and corresponding roles. Design, construct and operate
research facilities in a timely and cost- effective manner.? To achieve this
objective, DOE presents various performance goals, including to ?operate

the DIII- DTokamak facility to test the feasibility of using increased radio
frequency heating power and improved power exhaust capabilities to extend
the pulse length of advanced operating modes, a requirement for future
fusion energy sources.? DOE states that ?about one half of the new rf [radio
frequency] sources became available early this year, and these were used in
initial experiments in June.? DOE indicates that it met the goal and
provides some brief elaboration on the experiments conducted that made
?progress towards extending the pulse length of advanced operating modes.?
Contrary to the OMB guidance, the language used in this description is laden
with jargon and is not easy to comprehend.

In contrast, for other performance goals for this objective, such as ?obtain

data from the second station on the North Slope of Alaska, and make
operational the third station in the Tropical Western Pacific on Christmas
Island,? DOE presents significantly greater detail that is relatively easily
to Science and Technology

Innovations

Page 16 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

understand. For example, DOE explains that these data are targeted at
improving climate prediction and a description of data collection efforts
that meet most of the elements associated with this performance goal are
presented. In addition, DOE indicates that the third station on Christmas
Island was deemed unacceptable due to infrastructure improvements that were
expected by the Japanese but not completed. A description of why the third
station was not completed is provided as well as the steps necessary for
installing a new third station.

DOE has significantly revised the materials presented in the fiscal year
2002 performance plan for the Science business line. However, the outcome
?science and technology innovations are achieved at reduced costs? is not
included as an outcome in the fiscal year 2002 plan, and the new outcomes or
objectives included in the plan do not specifically address whether DOE?s
science and technology innovations will be achieved at reduced costs.
Instead, the new strategies included in the plan address such topics as
leadership, foundations, and break throughs in the physical sciences;
environmental protection and cleanup; exploring matter and energy at the
atomic scale; and providing the infrastructure and workforce to support the
physical, biological, environmental, and computational sciences. Some
indications on cost savings may be provided through the new set of
performance indicators that the Office of Science has established for all of
its program activities and plans. These indicators address excellence and
relevance, leadership, quality, safety, and health. DOE plans to report on
these indicators in 2002. The quality indicator provides an example of how
DOE may address the issue of reduced cost through the new indicators. For
the quality indicator, DOE states that it expects at least 80 percent of new
research projects to be peer reviewed and that all future scientific user
facility upgrades and construction must be within 10 percent, on average, of
cost and schedule milestones. Finally, for the science outcome, the plan
includes several relevant targets for the human capital challenge. For
example, the Office of Science is offering graduate fellowships to support
the next generation of leaders in computational sciences and using expert
panels and peer review committees as a regular evaluation tool to supplement
existing DOE staff expertise and ensure that research is focused and
outstanding.

Page 17 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements or
remaining weaknesses in DOE?s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report in
comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report, and (2) fiscal year 2002
performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also
discusses the degree to which the agency?s fiscal year 2000 report and
fiscal year 2002 plan addresses concerns and recommendations by the
Congress, GAO, OIG, and others.

DOE has made some improvements in its fiscal year 2000 performance and
accountability report when compared to its fiscal year 1999 report. The
fiscal year 2000 report organizes detailed performance results by
departmental decision unit to better track with the budget. It also provides
cross- references so that the reader can easily find the annual performance
goals associated with particular outcomes. The fiscal year 2000 report also
has improved linkages between performance objectives and funding because it
provides a crosswalk between the performance goals and the DOE budget
decision units that fund specific programs.

However, like the fiscal year 1999 report, the fiscal year 2000 report still
does not consistently present a clear picture of what the Department has
accomplished for its major business lines or how it plans to get there. For
example, both reports mention the creation of NNSA, but neither includes any
goals or performance measures associated with the establishment of NNSA.
Similarly, both reports tend to provide very few performance measures for
the Stockpile Stewardship Program, relative to the other programs within
this business line. Furthermore, neither report provides much information on
DOE?s actions to validate and verify the reported progress or strategies for
measuring progress; nor do they provide much information on DOE?s
collaboration and coordination activities with other federal agencies. In
addition, for both fiscal years, the information provided for annual
performance goals and measures for some outcomes varies significantly. Some
program- level goals and measures are very detailed and others more general.
This variance makes it difficult for the reader to gain an overall
perspective of progress within a particular outcome. In addition, sometimes
they are so narrowly drawn that, without Comparison of DOE?s

Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan
With the Prior Year Report and Plan for Selected Key Outcomes

Comparison of Performance Reports for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000

Page 18 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

additional information on strategies or longer term goals, it is difficult
to determine the Department?s objectives or means for achieving them.

Finally, the OIG noted that, overall, DOE?s fiscal year 1999 performance
measures did not include cost- effectiveness attributes. This observation
continues to apply to some of the outcomes in the fiscal year 2000 report.
For example, while the environmental quality indicators in the fiscal year
2000 report are good measures of program outputs, they do not capture
overall cost- effectiveness or other Department- wide objectives, such as
safety and integration of similar cleanup activities among sites. Without
such measures that address competing concerns, DOE?s performance measures
can have unintended consequences. For example, for several years DOE has
reported successfully meeting cleanup production goals at the Defense Waste
Processing Facility in Savannah River. However, the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board recently expressed concern that large volumes of
wastewater from this activity were straining the high level waste tank
capacity and reducing the margin of safety at the site.

In our previous reviews of DOE?s performance plans, we identified the
following weaknesses: (1) DOE?s plans did not provide reasons why individual
objectives, performance goals, or measures were revised, dropped, or added
and (2) some of the performance goals and measures lacked clarity and
quantification, making it hard to get a clear picture of intended
performance. Our review of DOE?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan found
that for some outcomes these weaknesses generally remain. While DOE has made
an effort to highlight changes to objectives, goals, and measures in the
fiscal year 2002 plan, it did not do so in all cases. For example, with
minimal explanation the plan dropped some of the Environmental Quality
objectives from the previous year, and it no longer has any general or
annual performance goals related to (1) long- term stewardship, even though
one of the new Environmental Quality strategic objectives specifically
refers to such stewardship activities, and (2) pollution prevention,
although the plan continues to mention pollution prevention goals under its
discussion of waste management strategies. While performance goals should be
periodically modified, the Department?s accountability would be improved by
explaining why these kinds of major revisions occurred.

The Department?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan also contains a new item-
general performance goals for each budgetary decision unit. This represents
a significant improvement over the fiscal year 2001 plan, which failed to
link many of the performance indicator results with a specific Comparison of

Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002

Page 19 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

performance objective and therefore obscured the linkage between annual
performance and progress toward long- term objectives. The Department states
that it included these goals as a way to develop indicators of longterm
outcomes. For example, under each general performance goal for the business
lines the plan describes the performance indicators that will be used to
measure progress for that goal. However, the general performance goals in
the fiscal year 2002 performance plan often use words such as

?promote,? ?develop,? and ?enhance? that do not provide a clear idea of how
the Department intends to reach its goals. Furthermore, the Department has
reduced the number of performance measures associated with most of its goals
for both fiscal years. For some goals, the lack of an adequate number of
performance measures may lead to future difficulties in fully measuring
DOE?s progress in achieving these goals. For some outcomes, such as the
national security outcome, the plan states that additional performance
indicators for its general goals are in development. It is therefore
possible that additional performance measures for some programs may be
included in DOE?s final plan. As it currently stands, there are no
performance measures for DOE?s Intelligence and Counter Intelligence
efforts, and only one broad measure- in use since fiscal year 2000- for
DOE?s Security and Emergency Operations.

Finally, although DOE?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan improved its
discussion of data validation and verification by discussing the data
systems under each program office, the plan falls short of disclosing
specific performance data limitations or providing instances where DOE did
not verify site- reported data. Such data limitations could be significant
in validating the Department?s reported progress. Recently, the Chairman of
the House Government Reform Committee affirmed the importance of valid and
accurate performance data by requesting the OIG to verify reported data for
significant performance measures. The OIG review of 10 selected performance
measures found inadequate documentation to validate the results for two
measures.

GAO has identified two governmentwide high- risk areas: strategic human
capital management and information security. Regarding strategic human
capital management, we found that DOE?s performance report explained its
progress in resolving this management challenge for only some of its
business lines and that the performance plan did not consistently include
goals and measures related to this management challenge for all of its
business lines. For example, in its fiscal year 2000 accountability report,
DOE reports favorable progress in meeting the strategic human capital
management challenge for the science outcome, but it does not provide DOE?s
Efforts to

Address its Major Management Challenges Identified by GAO

Page 20 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

this information for the other outcomes. This is particularly notable for
the Environmental Quality outcome, where we have reported that DOE faces
significant human management challenges in its oversight of large projects
such as the cleanup of hazard waste sites. However, the report did not
include specific Environmental Quality goals or measures to address this
challenge. In May 2001, the OIG reported that DOE?s fiscal year 2000
accountability report did not have any agencywide performance measures that
would address its considerable human capital challenge. Similarly, in DOE?s
fiscal year 2002 performance plan, while the science- related outcome
includes goals and measures for strategic human capital management
challenges the other outcomes do not. With respect to information security,
we found that DOE identified security, which includes cyber and information
security, as a departmental challenge in its fiscal year 2000 report and
fiscal year 2002 plan, and launched a number of initiatives designed to
protect its nuclear materials, facilities, and sensitive information.
Overall, the Department reports that it is making progress in improving
security. While some progress is evident, some of DOE?s performance measures
are process- oriented and do not always provide an assessment of real,
meaningful, and measurable improvements in information security. Moreover,
it appears that most of DOE?s security related performance measures for
fiscal year 2002 are still under development.

In addition, GAO has identified six major management challenges facing DOE.
We found that DOE recognized almost all of the management challenges that we
identified as departmental challenges in its fiscal year 2000 report and
fiscal year 2002 plan. DOE?s performance report generally discussed the
Department?s progress in resolving most of its management challenges for
some of its business lines. However, the level of detail provided across the
key outcomes varies extensively, and it is not always possible to
comprehensively assess DOE?s progress in resolving these management
challenges. Of the six major management challenges GAO identified, DOE?s
fiscal year 2002 performance plan included (1) goals and measures that
directly related to one of the challenges, (2) goals and measures that
indirectly related to three of the challenges, and (3) no goals and measures
related to two of the management challenges.

As agreed, our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of GPRA,
the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000, guidance to agencies from the Office
of Management and Budget for developing performance plans and reports (OMB
Circular A- 11, Part 2), previous reports and evaluations by us and others,
our knowledge of DOE?s operations and programs, GAO Scope and

Methodology

Page 21 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

identification of best practices concerning performance planning and
reporting, and our observations on DOE?s other GPRA- related efforts. We
also discussed our review with agency officials in DOE?s Office of Policy,
OIG, and the Chief Financial Officer. The agency outcomes that were used as
the basis for our review were identified by the Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, as important mission areas for the
agency and generally reflect the outcomes for most of DOE?s programs or
activities. The major management challenges confronting DOE, including the
governmentwide high- risk areas of strategic human capital management and
information security, were identified by GAO in our January 2001 performance
and accountability series and high risk update, and were identified by DOE?s
Office of Inspector General in December 2000. We did not independently
verify the information contained in the performance report and plan,
although we did draw from other GAO work in assessing the validity,
reliability, and timeliness of DOE?s performance data. We conducted our
review from April 2001 through June 2001 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.

We provided copies of a draft of this report to DOE for its review and
comment. On June 22, 2000, senior officials from DOE?s Office of Strategic
Planning and Evaluation provided oral comments on the draft report. Overall,
the DOE officials stated that the report was well balanced in its
description of the strengths and weaknesses of the performance report and
plan. However, the officials made two specific comments. First, with regard
to the performance plan, the officials felt that DOE had made significant
progress in clearly identifying the objectives, goals, and measures that had
been revised from the prior year?s plan. They did not believe that the plan
had to identify reasons for every change made to the objectives, goals, and
measures. In particular, they noted that because the performance plan is
closely linked to DOE?s strategic plan, many of the changes to the fiscal
year 2002 plan were a result of changes made to the strategic plan. Because
the changes to the strategic plan have already been through an extensive
comment and review process, the DOE officials stated that it was not
necessary to revisit the reasons for these changes in the performance plan.
We have modified the report to acknowledge DOE?s efforts to highlight
changes to its objectives, goals, and measures in the fiscal year 2002 plan.
Secondly, the DOE officials noted that the key outcomes that GAO was asked
to review were quite broad and not easily quantifiable. Thus, they believe
that it would be difficult to evaluate the Department?s progress in
achieving these key outcomes without detailed program evaluations. The
officials stated that they would like to see the Agency Comments

Page 22 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

nature of GAO?s GPRA- related reviews expand to more detailed program
evaluations rather than limited to reviews of planning and reporting
documents. They said that such reviews would be more helpful in further
refining their GPRA related reporting and planning practices. We agree that
performance evaluations are a logical step in evaluating an agency?s
progress in achieving its key outcomes. Consequently, our review of DOE?s
performance report and plan relied extensively on previous reports and
evaluations by us and others, our knowledge of DOE?s operations and
programs, and our identification of best practices concerning performance
planning and reporting. Moreover, GPRA requires agency?s to conduct
systematic performance evaluations on a regular basis so that they can
determine whether their programs have achieved the intended objectives.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate
congressional committees; the Secretary of Energy; and the Director, Office
of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made available to others on
request.

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512- 3841.
Key contributors to this report were Mark Gaffigan, Jonathan Gill, Anu
Mittal, Diane Raynes, Patricia Rennie, and Daren Sweeney.

Sincerely yours, Jim Wells Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Appendix I: Observations on the Department of Energy?s Efforts to Address
Its Major Management Challenges

Page 23 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

The following table identifies the major management challenges confronting
the Department of Energy (DOE), which includes the governmentwide high- risk
areas of strategic human capital management and information security. The
first column lists the challenges that we and/ or DOE?s Office of Inspector
General (OIG) have identified. The second column discusses what progress, as
discussed in its fiscal year 2000 performance report, DOE made in resolving
its challenges. The third column discusses the extent to which DOE?s fiscal
year 2002 performance plan includes performance goals and measures to
address the challenges that we and the OIG identified. DOE?s performance
report generally recognizes almost all of the management challenges that GAO
and others have identified as departmental challenges in its fiscal year
2000 report and fiscal year 2002 plan. We found that DOE?s performance
report discussed the agency?s progress in resolving most of the management
challenges for some of its business lines. However, the level of detail
provided across the key outcomes varied extensively, and it is not always
possible to comprehensively assess DOE?s progress in resolving these
management challenges. For example, we could not determine the level of
progress that had been made in resolving management challenges relating to
the establishment of the National Nuclear Security Administration. Of DOE?s
12 major management challenges identified by both GAO and OIG, the fiscal
year 2002 performance plan included (1) goals and measures that directly
related to three of the challenges, (2) goals and measures that indirectly
related to six of the challenges, and (3) no goals and measures that related
to three of the management challenges. Appendix I: Observations on the
Department

of Energy?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management Challenges

Appendix I: Observations on the Department of Energy?s Efforts to Address
Its Major Management Challenges

Page 24 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Table 1: Major Management Challenges for the Department of Energy Major
management challenge

Progress in resolving major management challenges as discussed in the fiscal
year 2000 performance report Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan GAO- designated governmentwide high risk

Strategic human capital management: GAO has identified shortcomings at
multiple agencies involving key elements of modern strategic human capital
management, including strategic human capital planning and organizational
alignment; leadership continuity and succession planning; acquiring and
developing staff whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency needs; and
creating resultsoriented organizational cultures.

(DOE?s OIG has also identified strategic human capital management as a
management challenge for the agency.)

DOE?s fiscal year 2000 report recognizes human capital management as a
departmental challenge. However, only two of the four business lines
included any goals and measures to address human capital challenges in the
report.

DOE?s Science business line articulates the importance of having the
scientific workforce to ensure leadership in the physical, biological,
environmental, and computational sciences. Also, under the National Security
business line, the report contained one human capital goal in its discussion
of nonproliferation goals, but no direct measures for this challenge. Thus,
overall, it is difficult to assess what progress DOE as an agency has made
in addressing this challenge.

DOE?s fiscal year 2002 plan generally does not include goals or measures for
the human capital management challenge for three of the four business lines.
For the Science business line, the plan does include several relevant
targets for the human capital challenge. For example, the Office of Science
is offering graduate fellowships to support the next generation of leaders
in computational sciences and using expert panels and peer review committees
as a regular evaluation tool to supplement existing DOE staff expertise and
ensure that research is focused and outstanding.

Information security: GAO?s January 2001 high- risk update noted that the
agencies? and the government?s efforts to strengthen information security
have gained momentum and expanded. Nevertheless, recent audits continue to
show federal computer systems are riddled with weaknesses that make them
highly vulnerable to computer- based attacks and place a broad range of
critical operations and assets at risk of fraud, misuse, and disruption.

In its fiscal year 2000 performance report, DOE recognized information
security as a departmental challenge. In its report, DOE stated it had met
its goals on two performance measures designed to improve information
security. In addition, DOE reported that it had completed five critical
milestones in its Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)
Corrective Action plan designed to improve its information and cyber
security. While some progress is evident, most of these measures appear more
process- and activity- instead of outcome- oriented.

DOE?s independent auditor?s report for fiscal year 2000, included in the
fiscal year 2000 performance report, identified unclassified information
system security as a reportable weakness because of repeated network
vulnerabilities and access control weaknesses.

In its fiscal year 2002 performance plan, DOE continues to identify security
as a departmental challenge. In its statement of general performance goals,
DOE describes a number of activities designed to modernize its information
security programs to analyze and deter major incidents involving the
compromise of classified information. Nevertheless, DOE does not provide a
readily accessible and clear picture of how it intends to measure progress
on this important goal, since it has few dedicated information security
performance measures. Nor does the plan address recognized weaknesses in
DOE?s unclassified information systems.

Appendix I: Observations on the Department of Energy?s Efforts to Address
Its Major Management Challenges

Page 25 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan GAO- designated major management
challenges

Financial management: For the past 2 years, the independent auditor?s report
on DOE?s consolidated financial statements has reported financial management
concerns at the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA). WAPA markets and
transmits electric power and provides related services.

DOE?s independent auditor?s report for fiscal year 2000, included in the
fiscal year 2000 performance report, identified financial management at WAPA
as a reportable condition. The report notes that WAPA has made improvements
over the past year but is still exposed to potential loss of data integrity,
reporting inaccuracies, and operational inefficiencies. However, DOE did not
list this as a departmental challenge in its fiscal year 2000 performance
report.

DOE?s fiscal year 2002 plan included a goal to manage financial resources to
achieve an independent auditor?s unqualified opinion in the Department?s
annual audit. However, DOE did not address the reportable condition for
financial management at WAPA as a targeted measure in its plan under this
goal. Addressing the reportable condition would be an appropriate target to
assist in meeting the objective of receiving an unqualified audit opinion in
the future. The only performance measure included in the plan for this
objective is complete implementation of their Business Management
Information System nationwide by fiscal year 2002. Nonproliferation issues:
Achieving nonproliferation goals requires improved priority setting and
program coordination. GAO identified three main challenges that DOE?s
nonproliferation programs face. These include obtaining better access to
information and Russian nuclear weapons laboratories to better target
program resources to the greatest risks, verifying the use of program funds,
and coordinating several DOE programs involving the newly independent states
to increase their effectiveness. Our reviews of DOE?s nonproliferation
programs recognize that there are inherent difficulties involved in working
with Russia and the other newly independent states.

While DOE has over 30 performance measures spread out over three strategic
goals related to reducing the global danger from weapons of mass destruction
and improving international safety, very few of these measures specifically
addressed the management challenges we identified for this area.

DOE?s report, however, recognized that the disposition of U. S. and Russian
surplus fissile materials was a departmental challenge. DOE?s report
contained 11 performance measures related to this challenge and stated that
the Department had made mixed progress in disposing of surplus fissile
materials. Several important activities, such as installing monitoring
equipment at Russian highly enriched uranium (HEU) conversion facilities and
completing title I design of two plutonium disposition facilities fell
behind schedule. The Department?s performance measures do not convey a
coherent picture of the strategy for disposing of surplus U. S. plutonium.

(Also discussed under outcomes.) While DOE continues to have a number

of performance measures related to reducing the global danger from weapons
of mass destruction and improving international safety in its fiscal year
2002 plan, very few of these measures specifically address the management
challenges we identified for this area. Within the performance plan,
however, there is evidence that DOE has been working actively with Russia
and other nations to improve access to information and facilities. For
example, DOE officials plan to initiate technical discussions with Russian
officials on the installation of monitoring equipment at a Russian HEU
conversion facility.

The fiscal year 2002 plan continues to recognize that the disposition of U.
S. and Russian surplus fissile materials is a departmental challenge. For
the plan, DOE has seven performance measures related to this challenge.
Efforts will continue to be made in fiscal year 2002 to install monitoring
equipment in Russian HEU conversion facilities. While there is a better
discussion of the strategy for disposing of U. S. plutonium, realization of
this goal may be hampered by reduced design work on the pit disassembly and
conversion facility and by suspension of work on a plutonium immobilization
facility.

Appendix I: Observations on the Department of Energy?s Efforts to Address
Its Major Management Challenges

Page 26 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan GAO- and IG- designated major management
challenges

Nuclear weapons stockpile: GAO and others have found pervasive and long-
standing problems with DOE?s ability to address project management, planning
and budgeting, organizational alignment, and human capital challenges, while
effectively and efficiently maintaining nuclear weapons capabilities. DOE
has sought to maintain through the Stockpile Stewardship Program, the safety
and reliability of U. S. nuclear weapons under a nuclear testing moratorium
in the post- Cold War era. The Congress created the National Nuclear
Security Administration (NNSA) to deal with many of these problems.

Four of DOE?s strategic goals and 11 performance measures involve DOE?s
Stockpile Stewardship Program. However, DOE uses relatively few performance
measures that directly address the major management challenges we have
identified in the program. For example, DOE?s reported progress in improving
management issues is mixed. In addition, DOE does not directly address
planning and budgeting issues or strategic human capital management issues
in its discussion of the Stockpile Stewardship Program.

(Also discussed under outcomes.) In the fiscal year 2002 plan, three of

DOE?s goals and nine performance measures involve DOE?s Stockpile
Stewardship Program, but relatively few of these measures directly address
this management challenge. Regarding project management, instead of specific
project goals, the plan includes only one broad performance measure to meet
established facility operating plans and construction schedules. There are
no performance measures related to planning and budgeting, organizational
alignment, and human capital issues, even though NNSA is taking specific,
congressionally directed actions in all three areas.

Appendix I: Observations on the Department of Energy?s Efforts to Address
Its Major Management Challenges

Page 27 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Contract management: Problems in contract management (which includes project
management) place DOE at high risk for fraud, waste, abuse, and
mismanagement. This has been a challenge for DOE since 1990, especially
because DOE relies heavily on contractors to achieve most of its missions.
DOE has begun a number of initiatives to improve contractor management, but
it is too soon to tell whether the initiatives will be effective in the
long- run. In addition, several OIG audits have found that many of DOE?s
contract reform goals have yet to be achieved.

In the Corporate Management overview section of its fiscal year 2000 report,
DOE claims steady progress toward adopting performance- based management as
the foundation of its major management contracts. However, the report
acknowledges that project management problems continue to adversely affect
credibility in the Department?s ability to build new facilities or upgrade
systems. For example, the Department terminated its $7 billion contract
under the Office of River Protection to stabilize high level tank waste due
to concerns about the contractor?s performance and rapidly escalating cost
estimates. The Department reports that it is acting aggressively to
implement project management reforms as recommended by a National Research
Council study and other internal and external reviews of the problem.
Nevertheless, more time will be needed to achieve intended goals.

Overall, DOE?s report does not include performance measures related to this
challenge for its other four business lines. The Environmental Quality
business line includes a performance measure that applies directly to
contract management- to monitor and review activities at the Savannah River
Operations Office and ensure adherence to project costs and schedules. DOE
reported that it conducted several reviews; however, it did not indicate the
outcome of those reviews. Similarly, DOE included the continued construction
of the National Ignition Facility (NIF) and the rebaselining of NIF as an
explicit performance measure in the fiscal year 2000 report but offered no
performance measures to ensure that management and oversight problems were
being corrected. The report also includes a performance measure to begin the
execution of the Defense related project management campaign, within the
National Security business line section of the report. However, the
discussion is vague, and it is unclear where this activity is being
performed in DOE and how this effort is being applied to major national
security projects.

DOE?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan addresses contract/ project
management challenges primarily under a Corporate Management general
performance objective to ensure public confidence in the Department?s
contractual transactions. The plan states that performance indicators for
this objective are under development and includes annual targets to increase
the use of E- government services and performance- based contracts. However,
the business line sections of the plan have few general performance
objectives or measures that specifically apply to contract/ project
management. For example, under the Environmental Quality business line, the
plan does not measure the cost effectiveness or timeliness of DOE?s major
environmental projects.

In its fiscal year 2001 plan, DOE included a performance measure for the
implementation of a six- point plan to improve the project management of
NIF. This did not carry over into fiscal year 2002. Instead, the Department
intends to gauge the performance of major projects such as NIF, pit
production, and tritium readiness through Campaign Program Plans and
Campaign Implementation Plans.

Appendix I: Observations on the Department of Energy?s Efforts to Address
Its Major Management Challenges

Page 28 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Security: Numerous studies have identified pervasive weaknesses in DOE?s
security controls. Our reports have highlighted weaknesses in computerized
information systems, foreign visitor, and foreign travel programs. While DOE
has responded to many recommendations, the Department has not always
followed through to ensure that improvements are consistently implemented.

DOE identified security as a departmental challenge and launched a number of
initiatives designed to protect its nuclear materials, facilities, and
sensitive information. For example, the Department listed over 20 detailed
performance measures, including performance measures for information
security, related to improving security in fiscal year 2000. Overall, the
Department reports that it is making progress in improving security.

While some progress is evident, some of DOE?s performance measures are
process- oriented and do not always provide an assessment of real,
meaningful, and measurable improvements in security. For example, DOE?s
Office of Counterintelligence reported that it performed 11 inspections
during fiscal year 2000, but it failed to note what security improvements
resulted from these inspections. In other areas where DOE said it had met
its goals, the policies are currently being reviewed because of
implementation concerns and issues raised by DOE field offices.

In addition, some important security measures may not be addressed. For
example, we noted recently that the creation of NNSA offered DOE a unique
opportunity to increase the effectiveness of security for nuclear weapons
information and security, but the report fails to mention either the
security challenges or the opportunities for improvement presented by the
creation of NNSA.

DOE acknowledges that many actions have to be fully implemented, finalized,
and allowed to mature.

For fiscal year 2002, DOE continues to identify security as a departmental
challenge and includes the goal of the effective management of information
technology resources in the Department. The fiscal year 2002 plan states
that performance indicators for this objective are in development. For
example, there are no performance measures listed for DOE?s intelligence and
counterintelligence programs and only one measure for DOE?s Office of
Security and Emergency Operations. This one measure - complete the
milestones listed in the FMFIA corrective action plan for the departmental
challenge of security - is broad and has been a performance measure since
fiscal year 2000. Without ready information on what these milestones are,
and without further information on additional performance measures, it is
difficult to see how the Department will assess its performance in fiscal
year 2002.

Appendix I: Observations on the Department of Energy?s Efforts to Address
Its Major Management Challenges

Page 29 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Environmental cleanup: Over 50 years of nuclear weapons research and
production have left a legacy of environmental contamination that poses
unacceptable risks. The magnitude of the cleanup effort, which includes
technical complexities and uncertainties at 44 remaining sites, ensures that
it will remain a departmental challenge for the foreseeable future. The OIG
reported that the Department has made progress in defining the cleanup
effort, estimating its scope, and prioritizing individual projects; however,
increased management attention is needed to achieve intended environmental
outcomes.

In its fiscal year 2000 report, DOE?s strategic goal for its Environmental
Quality business line encompasses this environmental challenge. DOE also
includes this challenge under two departmental challenges (Environmental
Compliance and Nuclear Waste Disposal). The Department reports progress in
implementing an aggressive plan to accelerate site cleanups and complete as
many sites as possible by 2006. Numerous Environmental Quality performance
objectives and measures monitor the intermediate and final steps toward
cleanup and closure of these and other sites. The results of these measures
are discussed in the previous section of this report.

Our January 2001 report of major management challenges and program risks at
DOE also recognized that DOE has made progress in establishing project
baselines, which define the scope of work, estimated costs, and schedules.
Nevertheless, DOE?s largest, most expensive and complex cleanup sites and
its most challenging technical problems lie ahead. To meet these challenges,
the Department will need to further improve baselines and integrate cleanup
activities among sites and within multipurpose sites.

(Also discussed under outcomes.) DOE?s fiscal year 2002 performance

plan continues to address this challenge with its Environmental Quality
general performance goals and related performance indicators that monitor
progress toward completion of geographic site cleanups, safe disposal of
wastes generated from past and current activities, stabilization of nuclear
materials and spent nuclear fuel to reduce safety and environmental risks,
deployment of innovative technologies to expedite cleanup and reduce costs,
and development of a repository for civilian high- level radioactive waste
and spent nuclear fuel. The plan adds a performance goal for disposal of the
Department?s depleted uranium hexafluoride and excess natural uranium
inventories and states that performance indicators for this goal are under
development.

IG- designated major management challenges

National Nuclear Security Administration: The successful establishment and
integration of NNSA may help correct many of DOE?s long- standing management
problems, but it may be several years before NNSA?s progress can be fully
assessed. The OIG has identified many logistical, organizational, and policy
challenges associated with the establishment of NNSA, which is in charge of
most of DOE?s important national security missions and nearly one- third of
DOE?s budget.

DOE?s fiscal year 2000 performance report acknowledges that there are
logistical and organizational issues surrounding the creation of NNSA. DOE
states it is establishing responsibilities and authorities, formalizing new
working relationships, resolving cross- cutting funding issues, and working
to ensure that its programs brought together under NNSA are integrated and
effective. However, the report does not identify any performance objectives
or measures associated with the challenge of establishing and integrating
NNSA. Therefore, it is impossible to determine what progress DOE has made in
resolving this management challenge.

The fiscal year 2002 plan mentions the creation of NNSA and notes that the
ongoing high- level reviews of national security have the potential to
affect performance goals for fiscal year 2002 and beyond. However, it does
not discuss this as a challenge nor does it include any dedicated
performance objectives or measures.

Appendix I: Observations on the Department of Energy?s Efforts to Address
Its Major Management Challenges

Page 30 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Energy technology: Recent events, coupled with the recent dramatic spike in
oil prices, have lead to a renewed national focus on the significance of oil
imports and the technology to mitigate energy dependency. Consequently, the
OIG has designated this as a major management challenge for DOE.

DOE mentions energy technology under the overall departmental challenge of
energy markets in its fiscal year 2000 report. The report describes the
Department?s efforts as supporting research and development or demonstrating
technologies that are designed to boost oil and natural gas production and
develop renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Because DOE does
not clearly describe its activities or how much they contribute toward long-
term performance goals, it is difficult to determine how much progress the
Department made toward this challenge in fiscal year 2000.

(Also discussed under outcomes.) DOE?s fiscal year 2002 plan describes

many goals and measures that are designed to develop energy technologies in
oil, natural gas, and renewable energy. However, the plan often describes
strategies and goals using words such as ?developing? and

?enhancing? that make it difficult for the reader to infer precisely what
actions the Department plans to take.

Information technology: Since 1996, the OIG has issued 10 audit reports
identifying problems associated with DOE?s implementation of the
ClingerCohen Act and its management of $1.6 billion in annual information
technology expenditures. Two of the OIG?s recent reports concluded that DOE
did not have an effective management strategy for information technology, as
was illustrated by its many duplicative information systems. The OIG
reported that ?the

development of duplicative or redundant waste information tracking systems
at the contractor level consumed significant resources and exacerbated
system proliferation problems.?

DOE?s fiscal year 2000 performance report recognizes information technology
as a departmental challenge. However, performance goals and measures are
included in the report only for two of the four business lines. For example,
for the Science business line, DOE states that it did not meet 75 percent of
the requirements of computer facilities and network uses. The demand for
computing capabilities far exceeded what current resources were able to
provide, with current computers at the National Energy Research Scientific
Computing Center (NERSC) providing less than one half of the resources
requested this year. DOE expects the pressure to increase in the future as
more applications become ready to move from software testing to use for
generating new science. To address this problem, only the highest priority
research was selected for the available resources, as determined by the
Energy Science Network (Esnet) Steering Committee.

In addition, for the National Security business line, the report indicates
that DOE either met or exceeded its goals for all but one target under the
goal of ensuring that the Department?s information systems are based on
cost- effective technology solutions.

While DOE?s fiscal year 2002 plan recognizes information technology as a
departmental challenge, goals and measures are included for this issue only
under two business lines. For example, for the Science business line, the
plan articulates the importance of having the scientific workforce and
infrastructure to ensure leadership in the computational sciences. For the
Advanced Scientific Computing Research Office the fiscal year 2002 targets
include providing support for the competitively selected Integrated Software
Infrastructure Centers to address critical computer science and systems
software issues for terascale computers. Another target is to support the
operation of the IBM- SP computer at about 3.5 teraflops ?peak?

performance. In addition, the plan includes 2002 targets for operating
facilities, including NERSC and Esnet, within budget while meeting user
needs and satisfying overall Science program requirements.

For the National Security business line, the plan continues to include the
goal of ensuring that the Department?s information systems are based on
costeffective technology solutions; however, the plan only includes one
measure- complete the milestones listed in DOE?s corrective action plan for
security.

Appendix I: Observations on the Department of Energy?s Efforts to Address
Its Major Management Challenges

Page 31 GAO- 01- 823 DOE's Status in Achieving Key Outcomes

Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management

challenges as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the

fiscal year 2002 performance plan

Safety and health: DOE faces difficult safety and health challenges that
encompass all activities related to radioactive and hazardous wastes, as
well as nuclear safety, occupational safety, and health of workers in
construction, scientific, and other departmental activities.

DOE?s fiscal year 2000 report recognizes safety and health as one of the
departmental challenges. All of DOE?s performance objectives and measures
pertaining to waste management and disposal encompass safe handling and
storage in addition to maximizing waste isolation to reduce risks. Under its
performance reporting for Corporate Management, DOE reported progress toward
this challenge, including implementation of its Integrated Safety Management
(ISM) program at all but two sites and completion of 11 safety management
evaluations in fiscal year 2000. The Department also reported correcting 80
of 106 vulnerabilities identified with storage of spent nuclear fuel.

DOE?s fiscal year 2000 performance objectives under Environmental Quality
prioritized certain measures to reduce the greatest risks to the workers,
the public, and the environment. As discussed earlier in this report, the
Department reported that its efforts toward this objective were partially
successful.

The Department reported meeting commitments to the Defense Nuclear
Facilities Safety Board to ensure the safety of its inventory of depleted
uranium hexafluoride.

DOE?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan addresses the safety challenge under
its Corporate Management performance measures. The general performance goal
is to integrate and embed sound environment, safety, and health practices
into the performance of DOE?s day- to- day work. The Department monitors
five indicators, such as the rate of work- related injuries or average
worker exposure to radiation, to assess the effectiveness of its ISM
program.

Under the Environmental Quality business line fiscal year 2002 performance
indicator goals that relate specifically to safety include stabilization of
nuclear materials, spent nuclear fuel, and depleted uranium hexafluoride
containers. To complete its geographic cleanups, the Department states that
it will first focus on reducing any worker or public safety and health
risks. However, the performance measures under this objective do not
directly track DOE?s progress in integrating safety practices into its
cleanup activities.

(360075)

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. ***