Results Act: Observations on the Department of Energy's Draft Strategic
Plan (Correspondence, 07/11/97, GAO/RCED-97-199R).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of
Energy's (DOE) draft strategic plan, focusing on: (1) whether it
fulfills the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act;
(2) whether DOE's key statutory authorities are reflected in the draft
plan and, if so, how they relate to the missions and goals in the draft
plan; (3) whether it reflects interagency coordination for crosscutting
programs, activities, or functions that are similar or complementary to
those of other federal agencies; (4) whether it addresses major
management challenges that GAO had previously identified; and (5) the
adequacy of DOE's data and information systems for providing reliable
information for measuring results.

GAO noted that: (1) DOE has been actively pursuing the objectives of the
Results Act since 1993; (2) its draft plan provides a mission statement
that is generally complete, results-oriented, and fulfills public needs;
(3) however, the draft plan does not meet all the requirements of the
Results Act; (4) the draft plan fully addresses two of the six required
elements of the Results Act-the mission statement and goals and
objectives-partially addresses a third, and acknowledges that three
others need to be completed for the final plan; (5) because the draft
plan does not contain all six elements, the Congress is missing critical
pieces of information for its consultation with DOE; (6) the draft plan
does not expressly link its mission, goals and objectives, and
strategies with DOE's relevant major statutory responsibilities; (7) the
Results Act does not require agencies' strategic plans to contain a
statement of statutory authorities; (8) however, GAO believes that
including such linkages may permit a better understanding of the
diversity and complexity of DOE's overall mission and goals and
objectives; (9) on the basis of GAO's review of relevant legislation,
GAO believes that: (a) the missions and activities defined in DOE's
draft plan are generally supported by broad legislation; and (b) the
draft plan accurately reflects all of DOE's major legislative
requirements; (10) DOE is sharing its draft plan with other federal
agencies for coordination but believes its functions are unique; (11)
its draft plan therefore does not identify programs and activities that
are crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies; (12)
however, DOE's mission does involve or overlap those of other agencies;
(13) GAO's previous work has highlighted serious problems with DOE's
management of contracts and major projects; (14) DOE's plan, under a
section called corporate management, includes objectives and strategies
that focus on these management challenges; (15) however, the specific
measures in the draft plan to address these challenges appear limited in
scope or are unclear; (16) the information system DOE uses to track
performance measures and to identify management problems noted several
weaknesses; (17) the system will require modification to track
performance measures evolving from the draft plan; and (18) in addition,
the system depends on information from other systems, some of which have
had problems with data accuracy and completeness.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-97-199R
     TITLE:  Results Act: Observations on the Department of Energy's 
             Draft Strategic Plan
      DATE:  07/11/97
   SUBJECT:  Agency missions
             Strategic planning
             Congressional/executive relations
             Interagency relations
             Reporting requirements
             Program evaluation
             Management information systems
             Energy research
             Research program management
             Competition

             
******************************************************************
** 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.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER



September 1997


GAO/RCED-97-199R

DOE's Draft Strategic Plan

(141074)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  BOP - Federal Bureau of Prisons
  CFO - Chief Financial Officers
  DEA - Drug Enforcement Administration
  DOE - x
  DOJ - Department of Justice
  FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation
  INS - Immigration and Naturalization Service
  NPR - National Performance Review
  OMB - Office of Management and Budget

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-277381

July 11, 1997

The Honorable Richard K.  Armey
Majority Leader
House of Representatives

The Honorable John Kasich
Chairman, Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Burton
Chairman, Committee on Government Reform
 and Oversight
House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Livingston
Chairman, Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Subject:  Results Act:  Observations on the Department of Energy's
Draft Strategic Plan

On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the draft strategic plans
submitted by the cabinet departments and selected major agencies for
consultation with the Congress as required by the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act).  This report
is our response to that request concerning the Department of Energy
(DOE).  DOE is at a critical juncture in its history.  The
Department's original core missions--to develop and test nuclear
weapons, conduct basic energy research, and set national energy
policy--are being replaced in emphasis by major new challenges in
environmental cleanup and leadership in science and technology. 


   OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND
   METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

We agreed to review DOE's draft plan and (1) assess whether it
fulfills the requirements of the Results Act and provide our views on
its overall quality; (2) determine whether DOE's key statutory
authorities are reflected in the draft plan and, if so, how they
relate to the missions and goals in the draft plan; (3) assess
whether it reflects interagency coordination for crosscutting
programs, activities, or functions that are similar or complementary
to those of other federal agencies; (4) assess whether it addresses
major management challenges that we had previously identified; and
(5) assess the adequacy of DOE's data and information systems for
providing reliable information for measuring results. 

We reviewed the most recent draft strategic plan--dated June 16,
1997--that DOE provided to congressional committees.  Our overall
assessment was generally based on our knowledge of DOE's programs and
operations; our numerous reviews of the Department; our discussions
with DOE's Acting Director, Office of Strategic Planning, Budget and
Program Evaluation; and other information available at the time of
our assessment. 

Specifically, we used the Results Act, supplemented by Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) guidance on developing the plans
(Circular A-11, Part 2), as the criteria for determining whether
DOE's draft strategic plan complies with the requirements of the
Results Act.  To make judgments about the overall quality of the
plan, we used our May 1997 guidance for congressional review of the
plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.16) as a tool.  To determine whether the plan
contains information on interagency coordination and addresses
management problems we previously identified, we relied on our
general knowledge of DOE's operations and programs and on the results
of our previous reports.  In determining whether DOE's draft plan
reflects the Department's major statutory responsibilities, we
consulted with DOE's Office of General Counsel and, as you requested,
coordinated our review with the Congressional Research Service.  To
determine whether DOE has adequate systems in place to provide
reliable information on performance, we relied on the results of our
previous reports and those of the Department's Office of Inspector
General. 

It is also important to recognize that DOE's final strategic plan is
not due to the Congress and OMB until September 1997.  Furthermore,
the Results Act anticipated that it may take several planning cycles
to perfect the process and that the final plan would be continually
refined as future planning cycles occur.  Thus, our findings reflect
a snapshot of the draft plan at this time.  We recognize that
developing a strategic plan is a dynamic process and that DOE is
continuing to revise the draft with input from OMB, congressional
staff, and other stakeholders. 

Our work was performed in June and July 1997 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.  We obtained
comments on a draft of this report from DOE.  Its comments are
enclosed. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Created in 1977 from several diverse agencies, DOE manages the
nation's nuclear weapons production complex and conducts research and
development on both energy and basic science.  DOE operates an
elaborate network of facilities, its core being the nuclear weapons
complex--a collection of 17 major facilities in 13 states that
design, develop, test, produce, and now dismantle the nation's vast
nuclear arsenal.  About half of DOE's $16.5 billion fiscal year 1997
budget is devoted to the nuclear weapons complex, an allocation that
reflects both the buildup of these weapons through the 1980s and,
more recently, the rapidly escalating cost of nuclear waste
management and environmental restoration.  DOE also maintains one of
the world's largest networks of scientific laboratories, comprising
nearly 30 sophisticated laboratories valued at over $100 billion. 
Highly dependent on contractors, DOE has about 110,000 contract
workers and about 18,600 federal employees. 

DOE began its strategic planning process in summer 1993, the same
year that the Results Act was passed.  Although the first strategic
plan under the act was not due until September 1997, DOE issued a
plan in April 1994.  Since that time, DOE has been actively pursuing
the objectives of the act by completing several planning and
reporting documents before the act required them.  For example, DOE
has issued an annual performance report for fiscal years 1994 and
1995 and a performance-based budget plan for fiscal year 1998.  In
addition, the Secretary of Energy entered into annual performance
agreements with the President for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.  These
agreements committed the Department to the achievement of its goals
and objectives for those years.  Along with early Results Act
accomplishments, DOE also began preparing annual audited financial
statements, as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act in fiscal
year 1995, and received an unqualified opinion from its Office of
Inspector General on the fiscal year 1996 statements. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

To its credit, DOE has been actively pursuing the objectives of the
Results Act since 1993.  Its draft plan provides a mission statement
that is generally complete, results-oriented, and fulfills public
needs.  However, the draft plan does not meet all the requirements of
the Results Act.  The draft plan fully addresses two of the six
required elements of the Results Act--the mission statement and goals
and objectives--partially addresses a third, and acknowledges that
three others need to be completed for the final plan.  Because the
draft plan does not contain all six elements, the Congress is missing
critical pieces of information for its consultation with DOE. 

The draft plan does not expressly link its mission, goals and
objectives, and strategies with DOE's relevant major statutory
responsibilities.  The Results Act does not require agencies'
strategic plans to contain a statement of statutory authorities. 
However, we believe that including such linkages may permit a better
understanding of the diversity and complexity of DOE's overall
mission and goals and objectives.  On the basis of our review of
relevant legislation, we believe that (1) the missions and activities
defined in DOE's draft plan are generally supported by broad
legislation and (2) the draft plan accurately reflects all of DOE's
major legislative requirements.  However, these current missions have
evolved from those that the Congress envisioned when it created DOE
in 1977.  The Results Act process provides a forum through which the
Congress can ensure that DOE's missions and priorities are
complementary, are appropriate in scope, do not duplicate those of
other agencies unnecessarily, and are in line with congressional
priorities. 

DOE is sharing its draft plan with other federal agencies for
coordination but believes its functions are unique.  Its draft plan
therefore does not identify programs and activities that are
crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies.  However,
DOE's mission does involve or overlap those of other agencies.  For
example, basic research is also performed by the National Science
Foundation; environmental and energy resources issues are also
addressed by the Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies;
and nuclear weapons production is done to fulfill requirements of the
Department of Defense. 

Our previous work has highlighted serious problems with DOE's
management of contracts and major projects.  DOE's plan, under a
section called corporate management, includes objectives and
strategies that focus on these management challenges.  However, the
specific measures in the draft plan to address these challenges
appear limited in scope or are unclear.  For example, while DOE is
making progress in addressing the high-risk issue of contract
management, the draft plan does not discuss the need to increase
competition in DOE's management and operating contracts, a
fundamental problem that we have identified in previous reports. 

Our review of the information system DOE uses to track performance
measures and to identify management problems noted several
weaknesses.  The system will require modification to track
performance measures evolving from the draft plan.  In addition, the
system depends on information from other systems, some of which have
had problems with data accuracy and completeness. 


   DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN REFLECTS
   FEW OF THE KEY ELEMENTS
   REQUIRED BY THE RESULTS ACT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The draft plan does not provide the Congress with complete
information for its consultation with DOE.  The draft plan includes
two of the six critical elements-- (1) mission and (2) goals and
objectives.  While DOE partially included a third element by defining
its strategies, it has not identified the associated resources needed
to achieve its strategies.  Furthermore, three other elements have
not been included--the relationship between the long-term goals and
the annual performance goals, the key factors external to the agency,
and the impact of program evaluations on the development of strategic
goals.  In issuing its draft plan, DOE acknowledged that it does not
yet fully meet the Results Act's requirements but said that all of
the elements will be included in the final plan. 


      MISSION STATEMENT INCLUDED
      IN DRAFT PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

DOE's mission statement provides a short overarching statement, but
the substance of its mission is described by what it calls four
business lines (hereafter called missions).  These are energy
resources, national security, environmental quality, and science and
technology.  DOE's draft plan also includes a section on corporate
management, which cuts across the missions. 

DOE's descriptions of its four missions generally are complete, are
results-oriented, and address public needs.  By complete, we mean
that the agency's major activities appear to be covered.  In
addition, the descriptions broadly focus on the expected outcomes. 
For example, a broad outcome of one of the missions is to effectively
support and maintain a safe, secure, and reliable nuclear weapons
stockpile without nuclear testing.  Moreover, the descriptions focus
on public needs, such as the need to reduce the environmental,
safety, and health risks from DOE facilities. 

As we have reported and testified before the Congress, DOE's current
missions bear little resemblance to those envisioned when the agency
was created in 1977.\1 DOE was created to deal primarily with the
energy crisis of the 1970s.  By the early 1980s, its nuclear weapons
production activities had grown substantially.  Following revelations
about DOE's environmental problems in the mid- to late-1980s, the
Department's cleanup budget began to expand and now overshadows the
budget for all other activities.  With the Cold War's end, DOE's
missions were expanded to include industrial competitiveness; science
education; environment, safety, and health; and nuclear arms control
and verification.  The Results Act process provides a forum for the
Congress to examine DOE's current missions to ensure that
Department's priorities are in line with those of the Congress and
that DOE's functions are complementary, appropriate in scope, and not
unnecessarily duplicative. 


--------------------
\1 Department of Energy:  Observations on the Future of the
Department (GAO/T-RCED-96-224, Sept.  4, 1996) and Department of
Energy:  A Framework for Restructuring DOE and Its Missions
(GAO/RCED-95-197, Aug.  21, 1995). 


      GOALS AND OBJECTIVES DEFINED
      IN DRAFT PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The second element in DOE's draft plan is the goals and objectives of
its missions and corporate management.  The goals and objectives
cover the agency's major functions and operations, and the goals are
generally results-oriented.  For example, one goal includes
aggressively cleaning up the environmental legacy of nuclear weapons
and civilian nuclear research and development programs, minimizing
future waste generation, safely managing nuclear materials, and
permanently disposing of the nation's radioactive waste.  Although
some of the terms are vague, the goal focuses on results. 

For each goal, DOE has multiple objectives.  Our review identified
several objectives that are stated in ways that will make it
difficult to measure whether they are being achieved.  One example of
an objective that is not measurable as written is under DOE's
national security mission:  to maintain confidence in the safety,
reliability, and performance of the nuclear weapons stockpile without
nuclear testing.  But we recently reported that DOE had not defined a
minimum acceptable level of confidence for its stockpile surveillance
testing.\2 We noted that DOE had not performed stockpile surveillance
tests as scheduled and was not able to measure the resulting decrease
in confidence.  For this objective to be measurable, it should
include a specific, measurable definition of confidence. 

Another objective, listed under the environmental quality mission, is
to reduce the most serious risks first.  Although a valid and
important objective, it cannot be achieved because DOE has not
identified priorities across its various sites.  As we reported in
1995, DOE's cleanup strategy has been shaped by site-specific
environmental agreements without consideration of other agreements or
available resources.\3 To enable DOE to allocate its resources to
reducing the greatest environmental risks, we recommended that DOE
set national priorities and initiate discussions with regulators to
renegotiate milestones in agreements according to those national
priorities.  Without overall priorities for the risks to be
addressed, the Congress will not be able to determine whether this
objective is being achieved, nor will DOE be able to target its
resources to ensure that this objective is achieved. 


--------------------
\2 Nuclear Weapons:  Improvements Needed to DOE's Nuclear Weapons
Stockpile Surveillance Program (GAO/RCED-96-216, July 31, 1996). 

\3 Department of Energy:  National Priorities Needed for Meeting
Environmental Agreements (GAO/RCED-95-1, Mar.  3, 1995). 


      STRATEGIES INCLUDED IN DRAFT
      PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

DOE's draft plan includes strategies and, to the Department's credit,
about 220 performance measures, which DOE calls success measures, for
evaluating the results of the strategies.  However, although DOE
acknowledges that it has not yet included the resource information
the Results Act requires, other information under this element is
also missing.  The missing information includes linkages to
day-to-day activities; the historical resource trends; and the extent
to which managers have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to
implement the strategies.  Without this information, it is difficult
to judge DOE's likelihood of success in achieving the goals or the
appropriateness of the strategies. 

According to DOE's Acting Director, Office of Strategic Planning,
Budget and Program Evaluation, the Secretary is looking for several
improvements in the draft plan.  The Acting Director said that many
of the objectives were supported with process-oriented measures as
opposed to expected results and that both the strategies and the
measures need to be more action oriented.  We concur. 


      THREE ELEMENTS NOT INCLUDED
      IN DRAFT PLAN
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

In addition to the missing components of the strategy and resources
element, three other elements have not been included.  They are the
relationship between the long-term goals and annual performance
goals, the key factors external to the agency, and the impact of
program evaluations on the development of strategic goals.  Without
these elements, we cannot assess the overall draft plan, nor can the
Congress have an effective consultation with DOE because the elements
required by the Results Act are interdependent.  For example, key
external factors are important in evaluating the likelihood of
achieving the strategic goals and the actions needed to better meet
these goals.  Furthermore, program evaluation can be a potentially
critical source of information for the Congress and others in
ensuring the validity and reasonableness of the goals and strategies
as well as in identifying factors likely to affect performance. 

According to the Acting Director, DOE's Office of Strategic Planning,
Budget and Program Evaluation, these elements, while not included in
the draft plan, are being finalized and were considered in preparing
the elements included in the draft plan.  He stated that these
missing elements will be included in the final plan. 


   LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES
   CONSIDERED BUT NOT INCLUDED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The Results Act does not require a statement of major statutory
responsibilities to be included with the agency's plan.\4 Thus, DOE's
draft plan does not include references to its major statutory
authorities nor does it expressly link the missions, goals and
objectives, and strategies with its relevant major statutory
responsibilities.  Nevertheless, we believe that including such
linkages in the plan may permit a better understanding of the
diversity and complexity of DOE's overall mission and goals and
objectives.  According to DOE's Acting Director, Office of Strategic
Planning, Budget and Program Evaluation, these references were
considered and will be provided as part of the plan when it is issued
in final form in September. 

On the basis of our review of relevant legislation, we believe that
(1) the activities defined in DOE's draft plan are broadly supported
by legislation and (2) the draft plan accurately reflects all of
DOE's major legislative requirements.  We noted that in addition to
its statutory authority, DOE has taken into consideration
implementation of relevant international treaties or agreements, such
as the Agreed Framework executed with North Korea.  However, we
question the reference in the national security objective to reducing
the danger from nuclear and "other weapons of mass destruction." In
our view, DOE's role with respect to weapons of mass destruction
other than nuclear is peripheral to its other responsibilities. 

Although DOE's missions are broadly supported by legislation, they
have evolved from those that the Congress envisioned when it created
DOE in 1977.  As discussed earlier, the Results Act process provides
a forum through which the Congress can ensure that DOE's missions and
priorities are complementary, are appropriate in scope, do not
duplicate those of other agencies unnecessarily, and are in line with
congressional priorities. 


--------------------
\4 OMB Circular A-11 suggests that an agency's mission statement may
include a brief discussion of the agency's enabling or authorizing
legislation.  This suggestion, however, does not extend to the
statement of goals and objectives. 


   CROSSCUTTING PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
   NOT IDENTIFIED, BUT
   COORDINATION IS OCCURRING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

DOE's draft plan does not identify programs and activities that are
crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies, primarily
because DOE believes its functions are unique.  Nonetheless, DOE is
sharing its draft plan with other federal agencies for coordination. 
On the basis of our work, however, we believe that DOE's four broad
missions do involve or overlap those of other agencies.  Because
overlapping and fragmented programs can waste scarce funds, confuse
and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness
of the federal effort, it is important for DOE to address this issue
in its plan. 

In the science and technology area, for instance, where the federal
government spent $60 billion in fiscal year 1996 and the potential
for unnecessary overlap is particularly pronounced, close
coordination is essential.  We have identified several examples of
agencies with potentially overlapping missions.  According to draft
strategic plans,

  -- DOE's science mission is to maintain leadership in basic
     research and to advance scientific knowledge;

  -- the National Science Foundation's mission includes promoting the
     progress of science, and one of its overarching goals is to
     enable the United States to uphold a position of world
     leadership in all aspects of science, mathematics, and
     engineering; and

  -- the Department of Commerce's mission includes keeping the United
     States competitive with cutting-edge science and technology. 

Furthermore, DOE states that it will use its laboratories and the
nation's universities to contribute to the nation's science and
mathematics education.  However, the National Science Foundation's
authorizing legislation directs it to initiate and support science
and engineering education programs at all levels and in all the
various fields of science and engineering. 

Unless DOE addresses crosscutting issues in its plan, the Congress
cannot be assured that federal programs are working effectively.  As
we have reported previously, the effectiveness of DOE and a host of
other science agencies has been hampered by unfocused missions and
unclear goals.\5 For example, the DOE national laboratories, in which
DOE estimates it has invested over $100 billion in the last two
decades, are a specific area in which our work, and that of others,
has shown a long-standing need for clarified missions.\6

DOE's other missions also involve or overlap those of other agencies. 
For example, environmental and energy resources issues are addressed
by DOE as well as by the Environmental Protection Agency and other
agencies.  Similarly, nuclear weapons production issues involve DOE
and the Department of Defense. 


--------------------
\5 Managing for Results:  Key Steps and Challenges in Implementing
GPRA in Science Agencies (GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214, July 10, 1996). 

\6 Department of Energy:  National Laboratories Need Clearer Mission
and Better Management (GAO/RCED-95-10, Jan.  27, 1995). 


   DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN ADDRESSES
   MAJOR MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Under its corporate management goal and objectives, DOE's draft plan
addresses major management challenges that we have previously
identified--management of contracts and major projects.  However, the
measures to address these challenges are unclear and do not address
issues that we consider to be significant. 

In discussing contracting approaches, the draft plan proposes
strategies that emphasize results, contractor accountability, and
customer satisfaction.  We commend DOE for including a specific
success measure for converting its management and operating contracts
to performance-based contracts because we consider the Department's
contract management a high-risk area that is vulnerable to fraud,
waste, abuse, and mismanagement.  But the draft plan does not address
the need to increase competition in DOE's management and operating
contracts, a fundamental problem that we have identified in previous
reports.  As we reported in our 1997 high-risk report, DOE continues
to award most of its management and operating contracts
noncompetitively.\7 From July 5, 1994, through the end of August
1996, DOE decided to extend 16 of 24 contracts on a noncompetitive
basis; it awarded the other 8 on a competitive basis.  If this
pattern continues, DOE will not gain the full benefits of competition
and will remain in the same weak negotiating position it has
maintained for years. 

Similarly, another strategy of DOE's is to strengthen the management
of facilities, projects, and infrastructure to ensure cost-effective,
safe, and environmentally sound operations and the successful
completion of new projects.  This strategy is important because DOE
has had a dismal track record for its major systems
acquisitions--those costing at least $100 million and required to
fulfill the Department's missions.  Of the 80 major acquisitions that
DOE initiated from 1980 through 1996, it has completed 15.\8 Most
were finished behind schedule with cost overruns.  Three of the
completed acquisitions have not yet been used for their intended
purposes.  Thirty-one others were terminated prior to completion
after expenditures of over $10 billion.  Many of the remaining 34
ongoing projects are experiencing cost overruns and delays. 

In its draft plan, DOE included a success measure that focuses on
meeting established project scope, schedule, and cost baselines.  DOE
plans to accomplish this by adopting management systems based on the
best project management practices of industry and government.  But
this strategy does not address the four causes that we identified in
our 1996 report as contributing to these problems:  the lack of
effective incentives for both DOE and contractor employees,
inadequate technical and management expertise, the Department's
changing missions, and inconsistent support for the projects either
from the Department or from the Congress.  We believe that addressing
these root causes is crucial to correcting DOE's deficiencies in
project management. 


--------------------
\7 High-Risk Series:  Department of Energy Contract Management
(GAO/HR-97-13, Feb.  1997). 

\8 Department of Energy:  Opportunity to Improve Management of Major
System Acquisitions (GAO/RCED-97-17, Nov.  26, 1996). 


   ACTIONS MAY BE NEEDED TO
   PROVIDE RELIABLE INFORMATION ON
   ACHIEVEMENT OF STRATEGIC GOALS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

DOE will need to modify the existing information system it
anticipates using to track performance measures evolving from the
draft plan and to identify management problems.  Moveover, that
system depends on information from other systems, some of which have
problems with data accuracy and completeness, according to reviews
conducted by both us and by DOE's Office of Inspector General. 

According to DOE's Acting Director, Office of Strategic Planning,
Budget and Program Evaluation, DOE will initially use an existing
information system to measure progress under its strategic plan. 
This system is the one that DOE currently uses to measure progress
against the performance goals in the Secretary's annual performance
agreements with the President.  Although this system addresses many
of the same issues that are in the draft strategic plan, it will
require fairly extensive modifications to track performance goals
that are based on the success measures in DOE's draft plan. 

In addition, the information used to update the tracking system
depends on various other information systems.  However, we and DOE's
Inspector General have found that, in some cases, the information
from those systems may be incomplete or inaccurate, as these examples
show: 

  -- Under a corporate management objective, one of the success
     measures is to have no fatalities, serious accidents, or
     environmental releases.  However, DOE's Inspector General
     reported that the Department's computerized accident reporting
     system underreports the number of significant work-related
     illnesses and injuries.\9

  -- Under the environmental quality mission, one of DOE's strategies
     is to develop and deploy innovative environmental cleanup,
     nuclear waste, and spent fuel treatment technologies that reduce
     costs.  But, according to a recent Inspector General report, the
     Department's contractors have not implemented a system to
     collect and disseminate scientific and technical information.\10
     Also, we recently testified that confidence in the cost-savings
     estimates varied for the environmental projects that we reviewed
     because they were based on preliminary data or reflected changes
     in project scope and duration.\11

  -- Under the national security mission, one of the success measures
     is to protect all U.S.-origin nuclear materials in foreign
     countries from possible illicit nuclear trafficking.  However,
     we have reported that the U.S.  system that tracks exported
     nuclear materials does not have all the information needed to
     identify the specific location and status of all nuclear
     materials of U.S.  origin that are supplied to foreign
     countries.\12


--------------------
\9 Audit of Department of Energy Contractor Occupational Injury and
Illness Reporting Practices (DOE/IG-0404, May 7, 1997). 

\10 Audit of the Department of Energy's Scientific and Technical
Information Process (DOE/IG-0407, June 17, 1997). 

\11 Cleanup Technology:  DOE's Program to Develop New Technologies
for Environmental Cleanup (GAO/T-RCED-97-161, May 7, 1997). 

\12 Nuclear Nonproliferation:  U.S.  International Nuclear Materials
Tracking Capabilities Are Limited (GAO/RCED/AIMD-95-5, Dec.  27,
1994). 


   OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9

To its credit, DOE has been actively pursuing the objectives of the
Results Act since 1993.  DOE has done a good job of focusing on
Department-wide missions that transcend the interests of individual
programs.  However, in not completing more than two of the six
elements, DOE may have lost an opportunity to have the most effective
congressional consultation process. 

Nonetheless, the consultation process provides the opportunity for
the Congress to evaluate the continuing appropriateness of DOE's
missions in light of the fact that (1) these missions have changed
drastically from those that existed when DOE was created and (2) the
four broad missions significantly involve or overlap those of other
agencies.  In this way, the Congress can ensure that DOE's priorities
are in line with its own and that DOE's functions are complementary,
appropriate in scope, and not unnecessarily duplicative. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Energy for
its review and comment.  (DOE's comments are in the enclosure.)
Overall, DOE agreed that our report will be helpful as the Department
moves to the next stage of its strategic plan's development. 
However, DOE (1) disagreed that the incompleteness of its strategic
plan lessened the effectiveness of its consultation with
congressional staffs and (2) believed that, in general, the
consultation process could be impaired if agencies are taken to task
for not having fully developed final plans.  While we agree with DOE
that effective consultation can be based on working draft plans, we
believe that these draft plans should discuss the six elements
outlined in the Results Act to provide a better foundation for the
consultation process.  Recognizing DOE is continuing to revise its
draft plan, our report focused on issues not resolved in the
Department's working draft.  We believe that it is important for
these issues to be considered over the few remaining months of
consultation before a final plan is required. 


--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report
until 30 days from its issue date.  At that time, we will send copies
of this report to the Minority Leader of the House of
Representatives; Ranking Minority Members of your Committees and the
Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of other committees that have
jurisdiction over DOE; the Secretary of Energy; and the Director,
Office of Management and Budget.  We will send copies to others on
request. 

Please call me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. 

Victor S.  Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources,
 and Science Issues

Enclosure




(See figure in printed edition.)Enclosure I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
============================================================== Letter 



(See figure in printed edition.)


*** End of document. ***