Skip to main content

New NNSA office to plan budgets

NEWS FLASH: New NNSA office to plan budgets

New Program Review and Analysis Office to Improve NNSA’s Budgeting and Planning Capabilities, Increase Accountability
May 7, 2013


WASHINGTON, D.C. – The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) today announced the creation of the Office of Program Review and Analysis (PR&A) to serve as an independent broker of strategic information and analysis across NNSA’s programs. PR&A will provide NNSA’s administrator and senior leadership with independent analytical advice regarding strategic and programmatic resource allocations. The creation of the office is designed to improve NNSA’s ability to budget and plan, and to increase accountability for programmatic goals and ideas.

Dr. Steven Ho has been named director of the new Office of Program Review and Analysis (PR&A). Prior to joining NNSA, Ho served for more than eight years in the Office of the Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (OSD-CAPE) where he was instrumental in restructuring several major defense acquisition programs. He most recently led the OSD-CAPE review of the B61 Life Extension Program.


“With the creation of PR&A, we can significantly improve how we plan and analyze our budget requirements to ensure the best use of our resources,” said NNSA Acting Administrator Neile Miller. “Modernizing our operations means rethinking old ideas about what works and what doesn’t. Steve Ho and our new Office of Program Review and Analysis will be an independent broker conducting analysis for NNSA programs and cross-cutting issues and translating that analysis into options.”

PR&A, in conjunction with NNSA’s Budget Office, will manage the annual development of the Future Years Nuclear Security Plan (FYNSP). Based on the approach taken by the Department of Defense to prioritize its needs, PR&A will provide NNSA leadership with the ability to make decisions from a set of well-developed and vetted options, while also ensuring that NNSA’s work reflects the Administration’s priorities and the President’s budget request.Delete
Anonymous
 

Comments

Anonymous said…
The classic response of our dysfunctional management system. If things don't work well, we hire more managers.
And in a few years, when the UPF needs again 300 M$ and is a few feet too short, congress will demand another report on NNSA and NNSA will hire more managers.
plus ça change...
Anonymous said…
NNSA needs to be dissolved and its useless bureaucrats canned. DOE has proved itself incapable of managing the weapons complex. Give it to DOD or make it an independent agency (with new people)--anything is better than what we have had for the last two decades.

Popular posts from this blog

Plutonium Shots on NIF.

Tri-Valley Cares needs to be on this if they aren't already. We need to make sure that NNSA and LLNL does not make good on promises to pursue such stupid ideas as doing Plutonium experiments on NIF. The stupidity arises from the fact that a huge population is placed at risk in the short and long term. Why do this kind of experiment in a heavily populated area? Only a moron would push that kind of imbecile area. Do it somewhere else in the god forsaken hills of Los Alamos. Why should the communities in the Bay Area be subjected to such increased risk just because the lab's NIF has failed twice and is trying the Hail Mary pass of doing an SNM experiment just to justify their existence? Those Laser EoS techniques and the people analyzing the raw data are all just BAD anyways. You know what comes next after they do the experiment. They'll figure out that they need larger samples. More risk for the local population. Stop this imbecilic pursuit. They wan...

Trump is to gut the labs.

The budget has a 20% decrease to DOE office of science, 20% cut to NIH. NASA also gets a cut. This will  have a huge negative effect on the lab. Crazy, juts crazy. He also wants to cut NEA and PBS, this may not seem like  a big deal but they get very little money and do great things.

Rumor corner

LLNS may have excluded the wrong people in last VSSOP? The exclusions were based on outdated job categories and related skills. ULM are now thinking that in the future, job categories and functional areas will have to be re-defined. The next VSSOP/ISP will be based on the new categories and functional areas. The questions I have are: 1) Why didnt they think of that before the transition. It seems like their style is “change things as you go”. Planning is out the window! 2) Who will give input on the new changes? The next RIF apparently is going to be more lucrative than the VSSOP. Depending on the length of employment, a RIFed person, not only gets their 1 week pay per year of service but also from 30 to 120 days notice, essentially 30 to 120 days pay. Please feel free to comment on the rumors or add new ones you actually heard.