DOE makes GAO highest risk list for 25 consecutive years, due mostly to NNSA contracting
The Department of Energy (DOE), the largest civilian contracting agency in the federal government, relies primarily on contractors to carry out its diverse missions and operate its laboratories and other facilities. Approximately 90 percent of DOE’s budget is spent on contracts and large capital asset projects. We designated DOE’s contract management—which includes both contract administration and project management—as a high-risk area in 1990 because DOE’s record of inadequate management and oversight of contractors has left the department vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. In January 2009, to recognize progress made by DOE’s Office of Science, we narrowed the focus of its high-risk designation to two DOE program elements—the Office of Environmental Management (EM) and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Together, these two programs accounted for almost 63 percent of DOE’s fiscal year 2015 discretionary funding of more than $26 billion. In February 2013, we further narrowed the focus of the high-risk designation to EM and NNSA’s major contracts and projects, those with an estimated cost of $750 million or more, to acknowledge progress made in managing projects with an estimated cost of less than $750 million. Our 2013 assessment found that DOE satisfied 3 of the 5 criteria needed for removal from the High Risk List. This year, we did not observe similar progress in DOE’s management of major projects. EM and NNSA struggled to stay within cost and schedule estimates for most of their major projects.
This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email firstname.lastname@example.org
Friday, February 13, 2015
- ► 2017 (145)
- ► 2016 (295)
- Battelle intrigued by NNSA possibilties
- How can the DOE "whistleblower" Contractor Employe...
- LANL waste records demanded by state
- Is Charlie going to be held accountable?
- LANL is still bungling security
- Nuclear Lab Whistleblower Case Moves Forward
- Amid Safety Concerns at LANL, Udall Weighs in on L...
- Will the labs really improve when LANS and LLNS ar...
- DOE: Cleanup Fund Will Pay WIPP fines
- Marketability of LLNL workers.
- New fines coming to LANS from security failures?
- Good riddance
- Where does LANS Management go from here on the WIP...
- Employee morale at both LLNL and LANL
- What is the Lab's mission in one sentence?
- Whistle-blower fired from Hanford nuclear site
- Report: Nuke lab failed to keep some information c...
- Sandia funding reduced, Los Alamos funding increas...
- Do we have a "Six Sigma" safety culture with LANS ...
- Security issues, as usual
- Happy Birthday!
- Alcohol on site?
- DOE makes GAO highest risk list for 25 consecutive...
- That's our story!
- The Wrong Move: Adding Nuclear Weapons to the Russ...
- Time to get deadly serious about nukes
- The fight is between NMED and DOE regarding violat...
- McMIllan's strategy
- Next round of LANL fines coming soon
- Do you want a 20% INCOMPETENCY DISCOUNT from Anthe...
- Hewitt Finally Gets the Boot
- Sandia describes strained relationship with NNSA
- Nuclear Official Allowed to Oversee Former Client
- Rumblings about a possible RIF at LANL due to havi...
- LANL workers get radiation contamination
- Sandia criticized by NNSA:
- Working Less at LLNS
- Livermore Lab Case Continued To Allow Time For Med...
- The broken NNSA laboratories
- ▼ February (42)
- ► 2014 (309)
- ► 2013 (431)
- ► 2012 (258)
- ► 2011 (162)
- ► 2010 (157)
- ► 2009 (231)
- ► 2008 (374)