Department of Energy: Procedures Followed in Awarding Grants to Study
Uses of Collider's Assets (Letter Report, 12/13/94, GAO/RCED-95-53).
The Energy Department (DOE) generally complied with federal regulations
and its own procedures in awarding grants to study future uses of the
Superconducting Super Collider's assets. GAO's review of DOE's grant
award processes did not disclose any departures from applicable
regulations and procedures in selecting the grantees and making the
grants. However, when notifying applicants that they had not been
chosen, DOE did not follow its regulation that applicants be told in
writing that they could ask for more detailed information on DOE's
decision. Instead, DOE officials assumed that they would be contacted by
the unsuccessful applicants if more information was desired. The 11
solicited grants that DOE awarded varied in terms of the funding and
technical support provided to the grantees because the scope, nature,
and complexity of the studies varied although the grants were generally
comparable in timing. The grantees generally received the level of
funding and technical support they requested and were generally
satisfied with the amount of support they received. Although grantees
residing in Texas had the obvious advantage of being near the collider
site, no other advantages for Texas grantees were identified.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-95-53
TITLE: Department of Energy: Procedures Followed in Awarding
Grants to Study Uses of Collider's Assets
DATE: 12/13/94
SUBJECT: Grant award procedures
Research and development facilities
Grant administration
Research grants
Energy research
Grant monitoring
Contract administration
Nuclear physics
Research program management
IDENTIFIER: DOE Superconducting Super Collider Project
Dallas (TX)
Oak Ridge (TN)
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* 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. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Science, Committee on
Science, Space, and Technology, House of Representatives
December 1994
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - PROCEDURES
FOLLOWED IN AWARDING GRANTS TO
STUDY USES OF COLLIDER'S ASSETS
GAO/RCED-95-53
Grants to Study Collider's Assets
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOE -
NASA -
GAO -
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-259149
December 13, 1994
The Honorable Rick Boucher
Chairman, Subcommittee on Science
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
After about $2 billion had been spent on constructing the
Superconducting Super Collider, the Congress voted to terminate the
project in October 1993 because of escalating costs, continuing
reports of management problems, and concern about the federal budget
deficit. The collider, intended to be the world's largest particle
accelerator, was under construction about 30 miles south of Dallas,
Texas. In terminating the project, the Congress also directed the
Department of Energy (DOE) to study and report on ways to maximize
the future use of the collider project's assets. To help with its
study, DOE awarded grants to various institutions to prepare studies
to define possible future uses of the collider's assets. The largest
of these grants was a $6 million noncompetitive grant to the state of
Texas.\1 DOE awarded 11 other grants to institutions responding to a
solicitation.\2 Five of these institutions were located in Texas and
six were outside the state; the solicited grants totaled $1.3
million. You asked us to determine (1) whether DOE complied with
federal regulations and its own procedures in awarding the grants,
(2) how the solicited grants compared in terms of support to grantees
from DOE and timing (i.e., the length of time provided for the
studies), and (3) whether grantees from the state of Texas were given
an unreasonable advantage over grantees from outside the state.
--------------------
\1 Texas is represented by the Texas National Research Laboratory
Commission.
\2 Two of the solicited awards were not grants. One award was made
to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, which conducted the work under an interagency
agreement between DOE and NASA. Another award was made to DOE's
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, which conducted the work under DOE's
management and operations contract with the University of California.
For reporting purposes, we are referring to all of the awards as
grants.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
DOE generally complied with federal regulations and the Department's
procedures in awarding grants to study future uses of the collider
project's assets. Our review of DOE's grant award processes did not
disclose any departures from applicable regulations and procedures in
selecting the grantees and making the grants. However, when
notifying applicants that had not been selected, DOE did not follow
its regulations that generally require that unsuccessful applicants
be informed in writing that they could request additional detailed
information on DOE's decision. Instead, DOE officials assumed that
they would be contacted by the unsuccessful applicants if additional
information was desired.
The 11 solicited grants that DOE awarded varied in terms of the
funding and technical support provided to the grantees because the
scope, nature, and complexity of the studies varied although the
grants were generally comparable in timing (the date of the grants'
award and date that studies were to be completed). The grantees
generally received the level of funding and technical support they
requested and were generally satisfied with the amount of support
they received. While grantees residing in the state of Texas had the
obvious advantage of being located near the collider's site, no other
advantages for Texas grantees were identified.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
On October 28, 1993, the President signed the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-126), which
provided for the orderly termination of the collider. At the time of
termination, DOE had spent about $2 billion on the project, including
about $279 million that was contributed by the state of Texas.\3 The
project's assets, with a book value of about $518 million, include
approximately 15 miles of underground tunnels and access shafts,
construction sites, tooling and test equipment, and buildings. Also
included among the assets are a magnet development laboratory,
very-low-temperature refrigeration facilities, and the project's
central facility, which includes office and laboratory space.
In recognition of Texas' large contributions, DOE agreed to provide
the state with the funds needed to develop proposals for using the
collider's assets. On March 30, 1994, DOE awarded Texas with a
noncompetitive grant for $6 million. This grant provided Texas with
funds to study four areas: advanced research in superconductivity,
high-performance computing, the medical uses of a linear accelerator,
and the potential restoration of the prairie at the collider's site.
In a parallel effort, on March 4, 1994, DOE requested expressions of
interest in potential future use of the collider's assets.
Twenty-five parties responded to the March 4, 1994, request. After
an expert panel reviewed the 25 responses, DOE selected six fields of
future use for further study. The fields, which combine some of the
individual expressions of interest, are cryogenic
(very-low-temperature) helium gas convection research, a geotechnical
research facility, a scientific study of the velocity of light in a
magnetic field, a research and science education center, minority
institutions' network access to a central computer facility, and a
regional industrial technology institute. On May 6, 1994, DOE
solicited grant applications for studies to define how the potential
assets would be used in the six fields. After reviewing 18
applications, DOE selected 11 applicants--5 in Texas and 6 outside
the state--and awarded them grants totaling $1.3 million on August 1,
1994.
--------------------
\3 In addition to providing DOE with $279 million, Texas purchased
land and made infrastructure improvements, such as improved roads and
utilities. Texas claimed that it had invested a total of about $539
million on the project.
DOE FOLLOWED REGULATIONS AND
PROCEDURES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
DOE complied with the appropriate federal regulations and DOE's
procedures in awarding grants to study uses of the collider's assets,
with one minor exception regarding the notification process to
applicants not selected for a grant.
All of the grants awarded by DOE were subject to certain provisions
in the Department's financial assistance regulations.\4 These
provisions addressed general requirements, such as ensuring that all
grant applications reviewed by DOE included technical, business, and
financial evaluations. Some other provisions in the regulations
outlined various requirements for grants awarded noncompetitively or
to state governments and applied only to the Texas grant. DOE
determined, for example, that the Texas grant met the requirements
for eligibility outlined in the regulations for noncompetitive awards
because the studies to evaluate the collider's assets would benefit
the Department and the grant was in the public interest. Finally,
some provisions in the regulations applied only to the grants
solicited through the expressions of interest process. DOE used
these provisions to help ensure that all parties were treated fairly.
For example, the provisions addressed the type of information that
was to be included in the grant solicitation. This would allow
potential applicants to decide whether to submit an application,
understand how the applications were to be evaluated, and know what
would be required of them if they were selected.
Similarly, certain DOE procedures for implementing the Department's
regulations applied to all the grants; others, only to the Texas
grant; and still others, only to the grants solicited through the
expressions of interest process.\5 For example, the procedures
identified what DOE should address during its evaluation of the grant
applications. Furthermore, the DOE contracting office for these
grants, located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, has issued further guidance
on implementing DOE's regulations for awarding grants.\6 This
guidance refers to the regulations and identifies the documentation
to be kept on file for each grant.
By reviewing the file for each grant and discussing the contents with
DOE officials, we found that DOE generally complied with its
regulations and procedures, with one minor exception. Under DOE's
regulations, when unsuccessful applicants are notified that they have
not been selected for grant funding for reasons other than the
unavailability of appropriated funds, a written notice from DOE is
required to offer the applicants the opportunity to obtain a more
detailed explanation of why they were not selected. DOE's letters to
the unsuccessful applicants did not disclose that this detailed
explanation was available. DOE officials said they assumed that the
seven unsuccessful applicants knew that additional information was
available and would request it if they so desired.
--------------------
\4 The regulations are identified in 10 C.F.R., subchapter H, part
600.
\5 The procedures are identified in the Financial Assistance
Procedures Manual, DOE Order 4600.1A.
\6 The guidance is identified in the DOE Oak Ridge Field Office
Standard Practices and Procedures.
FUNDING FOR GRANTS AND DOE'S
SUPPORT VARIED, BUT TIMING OF
GRANTS WAS COMPARABLE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
We compared the amount of funding for and DOE's technical support to
the grantees who received the 11 grants solicited through the
expressions of interest process. We also compared the timing of
these 11 grants. The grants varied in terms of funding amounts as
did the support provided by DOE to the grantees. These variances
reflected differences in the scope, nature, and complexity of the
studies to evaluate the collider's assets, but the grants were
generally comparable in terms of timing. The funding amounts for the
grants awarded through the expressions of interest process ranged
from $35,445 to $218,829, for a total of nearly $1.3 million, as
shown in table 1.
Table 1
Grantees, Fields of Use, and Amount of
Grants
Amount
Grantee Field of use of grant
---------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------
Yale University,\a Cryogenic helium gas convection $35,445
New Haven, Conn. research
Duke University,\a Cryogenic helium gas convection 47,036
Durham, N.C. research
University of Oregon,\a Cryogenic helium gas convection 183,469
Eugene, Oreg. research
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Geotechnical research facility 75,000
Berkeley, Calif.
Colorado State University, Velocity of light in a magnetic 76,934
Fort Collins, Colo. field
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Velocity of light in a magnetic 121,600
Pasadena, Calif. field
University of Texas at Research and science education 85,536
Arlington,\b Arlington, Tex. center
Southern Methodist University,\b Research and science education 86,904
Dallas, Tex. center
Prairie View A&M University Minority institution network 203,430
Research Foundation, access to the central computer
Prairie View, Tex.
University of Texas at Arlington, Regional industrial technology 162,181
Arlington, Tex. institute
Texas Manufacturing Technology Regional industrial technology 218,829
Center, institute
Waco, Tex.
================================================================================
Total N.A. $1,296,3
64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: N.A. = not applicable.
\a Yale University, Duke University, and the University of Oregon are
collaborating on a study of cryogenic helium gas convection research.
\b The University of Texas at Arlington and Southern Methodist
University are collaborating on a study of a research and science
education center.
Source: Prepared by GAO from DOE documents.
Some fields of use were more complex to study than others,
contributing to varying funding amounts. For example, according to
DOE's Deputy Director for the collider project, the scope of work for
the first three fields of use--cryogenic helium gas convection
research, a geotechnical research facility, and the velocity of light
in a magnetic field--was more focused than for the latter three
fields and therefore generally required less funds to complete. As
indicated in table 1, the grant awards in these three fields ranged
from a low of $35,445 to a high of $183,469 and averaged $89,914.
For the remaining three fields--research and science education
center, minority institution network access to the central computer,
and the regional industrial technology institution--the grant awards
ranged from a low of $85,536 to a high of $218,829 and averaged
$151,376.
All grantees were satisfied with the level of technical support they
received. Although DOE employees provided some support, this support
was provided primarily by personnel with DOE's contractors. The
amount of technical support that DOE provided to the grantees varied
largely as a result of the technical capability of the personnel
available. For example, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory's study of the
velocity of light in a magnetic field received the most technical
support; eight of the collider's laboratory personnel provided the
Jet Propulsion Laboratory with assistance--primarily information on
the superconducting magnets. On the other hand, the Lawrence
Berkeley Laboratory's study of a geotechnical facility received no
support from the collider's laboratory personnel because they lacked
expertise in this area. Instead, a DOE collider project official
provided the grantee with a 15-minute video on the project's
underground assets (such as the tunnels). The costs of such support
were not included in the amounts awarded to the grantees and were not
identified by individual grantees.
The grants were generally comparable in terms of timing. The grants
were awarded on the same date--August 1, 1994-- and the completed
studies were each due on October 31, 1994. However, preaward funding
extended the time frames of some grants by funding some of the
grantees' work before the awards were actually made. Preaward
funding did not increase the total amount of funding that the
grantees received but reimbursed them for work performed prior to the
August award date. Although all were eligible to request preaward
funding, only six grantees requested and received such funding,
according to DOE's Deputy Director for the collider project. The six
grantees that received preaward funding and began their studies early
are shown in table 2.
Table 2
Preaward Funding
Amount of Time period
Grantee funding covered
-------------------------------- ---------- --------------
Duke University $800 July 16-31,
1994
University of Oregon 56,197 June 22-July
31, 1994
Colorado State University 4,277 July 1-31,
1994
University of Texas at 5,300 July 15-31,
Arlington\a 1994
Southern Methodist University 32,434 July 1-31,
1994
University of Texas at 15,000 July 15-31,
Arlington\b 1994
------------------------------------------------------------
\a This grant was for a study of a research and science education
center.
\b This grant was for a study of a regional industrial technology
institute.
Source: Prepared by GAO from DOE documents.
NO UNREASONABLE ADVANTAGES
IDENTIFIED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
While grantees residing in Texas had the obvious advantage of being
located near the collider's site, no other advantages for Texas
grantees were identified. When asked, none of the grantees
identified any unreasonable advantages to grantees from Texas.
In exploring whether the different levels of support provided to
non-Texas and Texas grantees was an advantage, we found that the
amount of technical support provided was due to the availability of
expertise rather than the geographic location of the grantees. All
of the grantees advised us that they had received the amount of
support requested and that they were satisfied with the amount they
received.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We discussed the information in this report with DOE officials,
including the Associate Director, Office of Energy Research, and the
Deputy Director, Office of the Superconducting Super Collider, who
generally agreed with the information's accuracy. However, they
suggested some technical corrections, to describe how the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory received
funding for their respective studies, for instance, which we have
incorporated where appropriate. As requested by your office, we did
not obtain written agency comments on a draft of this report.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We reviewed DOE documents and interviewed DOE officials with the
project and DOE contracting officials involved in the grants. These
officials were located in Germantown, Maryland; Washington, D.C.;
Waxahachie, Texas; and Oak Ridge, Tennessee. To review DOE's
compliance with regulations and procedures, we also reviewed the
applicable federal regulations and compared them with DOE's
implementing guidance included in the DOE Financial Assistance
Procedures Manual and the DOE Oak Ridge Field Office Standard
Practices and Procedures. We also reviewed each grant recipient's
file and compared the documents in the files with the specific
requirements for grants in DOE's regulations and procedures. To
compare the grants, we focused on the funding for each recipient,
DOE's technical support for each recipient, and the timing of each
grant. In addition to reviewing the documents provided, we discussed
the aforementioned factors with DOE's and contractors' employees who
were supporting the grantees and interviewed the grantees. To
identify the advantages that might have been given to grantees from
Texas, in addition to comparing the funding levels for each grant and
the amounts of support provided to the grantees, we discussed the
grants and DOE's administration of them with each of the grantees,
including the state of Texas.
We performed our review from June through October 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
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 the Secretary of Energy and other interested parties.
We will make copies available to others on request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
I.
Sincerely yours,
Victor S. Rezendes
Director, Energy and Science Issues
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix I
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1
Jim Wells, Associate Director
Robert E. Allen, Jr., Assistant Director
Sumikatsu J. Arima, Evaluator-in-Charge
Paula L. Mathews, Senior Evaluator
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:2
Mindi G. Weisenbloom, Senior Attorney