text:
|Program Code
|Program Title
|National Nuclear Security Administration: Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)
|Department Name
|Department of Energy
|Agency/Bureau Name
|Department of Energy
|Program Type(s)
Capital Assets and Service Acquisition Program
Research and Development Program
|Assessment Year
|Assessment Rating
|Moderately Effective
|Assessment Section Scores
|Program Funding Level
(in millions)
|Year Began
|Improvement Plan
Continuing to improve the responsiveness of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure by coordinating planned program activity with the Complex Transformation Strategy Record of Decision, including transfer of the Pit Manufacturing and Pit Manufacturing Capability from the Pit Campaign to Directed Stockpile Work.
|Action taken, but not completed
|NNSA portion of FY 2010 President's Budget
Continuing to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Nuclear Weapons Complex by integrating the program requirements into development of the new Office of Defense Programs National Level Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) plan.
|Action taken, but not completed
|Year Began
|Improvement Plan
Measure: Annual percentage of warheads in the stockpile that are safe, secure, reliable, and available to the President for deployment.
Measure: Annual percentage of items supporting the enduring stockpile maintenance completed (and annual percentage of prior-year non-completed items completed).
Measure: Cumulative percentage of progress in completing Nuclear Weapons Council-approved W76-1 Life Extension Program activity
Measure: Cumulative percentage of progress in completing Nuclear Weapons Complex-approved B61-7/11 Life Extension Program activity
Measure: Cumulative percent reduction in projected W76-1 warhead production costs per warhead from established validated baseline, as computed and reported annually by the W76-1 Life Extension Program Cost Control Board
|Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Is the program purpose clear?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) Program ensures nuclear warheads in the United States stockpile are safe, secure, and reliable by developing solutions to extend warhead life, conducting scheduled maintenance, dismantling retired warheads and bombs, conducting evaluations without underground nuclear testing (to assess and certify reliability, and to detect and predict aging), producing warheads or bombs that include life extension solutions, and maintaining a flexible and agile nuclear weapons research and development and manufacturing enterprise as a means to hedge an uncertain nuclear future.
Evidence: The National Nuclear Security Administration Act/Title XXXII of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2000, Public Law (P.L.) 106-65 established the NNSA to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, including the ability to design, produce, and test. The FY 1994 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 103-160) directed the Secretary of Energy to establish the Stockpile Stewardship Program. The classified NNSA FY 2008-2012 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP) (U), 25 Apr 07, and NNSA FY 2007-2011 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP) Overview (U), DOE/NA-0014, 13 Nov 06, that describe the NNSA science-based nuclear weapons program, include this as the Program goal and describe the Program's role and integration with other Weapons Activities programs. The President's FY 2009 Budget and its included NNSA multi-year budget and performance plan - the FY 2009-2013 Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), Feb 08, also state this purpose as the Program goal.
Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work Program maintains the Nation's Nuclear Weapons Stockpile and certifies to the President on an annual basis that the nuclear weapons stockpile is safe, reliable, and secure in the absence of underground nuclear testing.
Evidence: The specific need is detailed in multiple cascading documents. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended) (42 USC Section 2011 (Chapter 84)) establishes the need for the United States to develop and maintain nuclear weapons as a deterrent for national security. The Department of Defense (DoD) Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), 2001, defines the direction for U.S. nuclear forces over the next ten years. The NNSA Strategic Plan, November 2004, provides for DOE/NNSA's mission, vision, and strategic themes for nuclear security. The statement on "National Security and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century" (made by the Secretaries of Energy, Defense, and State, Jul 07) delineates the nation's commitment to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent.
Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?
Explanation: Nuclear weapons are the sole province of the Federal Government, and the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is the Federal agency responsible for the safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The Directed Stockpile Work program has the lead within the NNSA to maintain the stockpile, with support by other programs within the Weapons Activities program area.
Evidence: This role is provided to the Department of Energy by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Energy Reorganization Act, P.L) 95-601, and the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1974. Title XXXII, National Nuclear Security Administration, to the National Defense Authorization Act for 2000 (Public Law 106-65) established the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) as a semi-autonomous agency within the Department of Energy with responsibility for the nation's nuclear weapons.
Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program works diligently and systematically to ensure that all aspects of the safety and security of nuclear weapons stockpile are addressed and that weapons continue to be highly reliable. The ongoing Life Extension Options (LEO) process provides for continued prioritization of various fixes or repair options for each warhead in the stockpile. The DSW Production and Planning Directive (P&PD) directs and documents priorities within the program and is subject to revision throughout each fiscal year depending on associated cost, scope and schedules against available resources. The direction of this program and its outcomes are jointly planned with, and reviewed by, the Department of Defense through the Nuclear Weapons Council process to assure that the program is efficiently and effectively meeting the needs of the Nation's nuclear deterrent policies and requirements. This process is focused on accountability and management of a large capital assets program and a strong research and development (R&D) program. The program uses a structured refurbishment process to implement Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) decisions, including a "Phase 6.X" process for the major refurbishments, called Life Extension Programs. The processes include definition of requirements, design approval, rigorous change control approval, and tracking. However, in applying resources (including scientists, engineers, and other technical workers who are of limited supply), many DSW activities have needed to be further prioritized in a transparent analytical way. This was done "manually" in the FY 2008 and FY 2009 programming and budget processes. Building upon this experience, the DSW is developing an analytical tool -- the DSW Integrated Priority List - for the FY 2010 programming and budget cycles that will rank DSW requirements against multiple criteria. The intended result is a clear mapping of proposed projects (and quantified benefits and uncertainties associated with those benefits and costs) against priorities (e.g., safety, surety, and future options for stockpile refurbishment, as well as maintenance and surveillance priorities). Overall, the LEO prioritization process combined with the P&PD, production outputs, annual laboratory assessments and weapon certification process enables the laboratory directors to certify the safety, reliability, and security of the stockpile to the President. In stockpile maintenance and improvement, weapon performance is predicted through ever-improving calculations using physical measurements from research projects and increasingly capable computers, weapons mechanisms and materials effects are characterized through physics, chemistry and engineering models and tests and weapons maintenance is guided by highly skilled engineers and technicians. Resource requests are based in part on plans for ever greater precision in understanding of all of the above. However, needs range from the NWC's most mission-critical, mission-urgent needs to less urgent, but potentially useful, efforts. In order to ensure that government resources are used effectively and efficiently to address National weapons stockpile needs, in this highly quantified enterprise it's fair to ask that there be a process to link projected outputs more quantifiably with the overall resources available for stockpile activities. The DSW program is but one aspect of this larger stockpile enterprise. Although the DSW effort appears to be well run, and trade-offs seem to be made well within the program and within some other related programs, further review is needed as to how linkages and trade-offs are or can be made between programs??not just by resource processes, but by use of quantitative estimates with a wide range of inputs??and how National needs can be met efficiently. Because the DSW program itself evidences no major flaws, this question merits a YES.
Evidence: The Defense Programs (DP) Program Management Manual (PMM) (Rev. 1), Dec 05) provides the operating business model to execute the Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program. The NNSA FY 2008-2012 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP) (Classified) (U), 25 Apr 07, and NNSA FY 2007-2011 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP) Overview, DOE/NA-0014, 13 Nov 06, describe the NNSA science-based nuclear weapons program, the Program's role, and integration with other Weapons Activities programs. The Program and Planning Directive, 2008-0, and its included Refurbishment Planning Schedule, contain the current planned refurbishments out to 2040. The LEO process is documented in the Production and Planning Directive, 2008-0.
Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work program design facilitates the effective targeting of resources. The NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation (PPBE) process integrates the program requirements and resources with other programs in Defense Programs and NNSA. Annually, the program's long-range planning and budgeting process includes detailed customer and contractor involvement upfront to ensure proper identification of required actions and allotment of funding resources to the proper program elements and contractors. After annual appropriations by Congress, program elements are funded according to the needs that have been defined and jointly approved with the Department of Defense to meet National Security requirements and documented in program plans. Implementation is done annually by Work Authorizations and Approved Funding Programs, Program Plans and Program Implementation Plans, Life Extension Program Project Execution Plans, and weapons complex documentation, such as the Production & Planning Directive.
Evidence: The Defense Programs (DP) FY 2009-2013 Program and Resource Planning Guidance and FY 2010-2014 Programming Guidance target the Directed Stockpile Work priorities within the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) profile. The DP priority list submitted to the NNSA as part of the PPBE Programming process includes the DSW priorities, integrated with those of seven other programs. The NNSA PPBE documents on the NNSA web site document the NNSA process, by year. The President's Budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration and the FYNSP provides the Presidential-directed program outline of the targeted DSW resources on a multi-year basis.
|Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
|Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?
Explanation: The key goal of the Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program is to ensure that the nuclear weapons stockpile be safe, secure and reliable. The DSW program has a limited number of specific long-term measures to meaningfully assess progress in achieving the program purpose. These measures are: (1) Annually, maintain 100% of warheads in the stockpile as safe, secure, reliable, and available to the President for deployment; (2) Annually, complete at least 95% of all scheduled maintenance activity (100% of prior-year's non-completed items); (3) By 2021, complete the Nuclear Weapons Council-approved W76-1 Life Extension Program; and (4) By 2013, reduce the projected costs per warhead of the 2009-2021 W76-1 LEP warhead production from established validated 2006 baseline by 2.0%. In addition, a fifth long-term target, that of completing NWC-approved B61 7/11 LEP activity will be completed by 2009 (on schedule).
Evidence: The President's Budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program provide the specific long-term performance measures for the DSW program. These measures are repeated in the program plans. The quarterly DOE Joule Report (internal management report) contains the status of progress on the long-term measures. DSW Program Plans and Program Implementation Plans provide for the correlation between long-term performance measures and annual program activities. Life Extension Program (LEP) Selected Acquisition Reports (SARs) provide the correlation between the DoD weapon acquisition strategy and the NNSA long-term performance measures and the projected costs for the LEPs. Also, see PART Measures Tab.
Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work program's long-term measures are ambitious, measurable, and have specific endpoints. The appropriate level of performance is coordinated with the Department of Defense through the Nuclear Weapons Council. These long-term measures are extremely ambitious given the sometimes one-of-a-kind research and development that goes into nuclear weapons, the strict adherence to safety and security requirements, the commitment to forego underground nuclear testing, the aging of weapon systems and components beyond their design life, and the retiring of nuclear experts with design, production, and underground test experience. Performance matrices are documented in the annual President's budget. Re-baselining can occur depending on actual results, appropriations, major program decisions, and technical factors/issues; as reflected in the following year's budget. When re-baselining has occurred within these measures it has been so indicated and reported in the quarterly NNSA DSW Joule Reports.
Evidence: Defense Programs (DP) Planning and Resource Guidance, and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Requirements Planning Document, Production and Planning Directive, Program Control Documents, and Master Nuclear Schedule contain ambitious targets and document that NNSA has incorporated the achievement of long-term performance measures in its annual planning process. The NNSA DSW Joule Reports document documents baselines.
Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program has a limited number of specific annual measures that meaningfully assess progress in achieving the DSW program's long-term measures. The annual measures include: (1) Maintain 100% of the warheads in the stockpile as safe, secure, reliable, and available to the President for deployment; (2) Complete at least 95% of all scheduled maintenance activity (100% of prior-year non-completed items); (3) Complete specific percentages of the Nuclear Weapons Council-approved W76-1 Life Extension Program (e.g., 54% by 2010); and (4) Reduce the projected (2009-2021) W76-1 Life Extension Program warhead production costs per warhead from the established, validated 2006 baseline by specific percentages by year (e.g., 1.5% by 2009, 2.0% by 2010). These measures are supported by program technical milestones to guide accomplishment.
Evidence: The President's Budget/Future-Years Nuclear Security Program provide the specific annual performance measures for the program. The quarterly DOE Joule Reports and annual DOE Performance and Accountability Reports contain the reported status of annual performance measures. Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) Program and Implementation Plans provide for the correlation between annual performance measures and program-specific technical milestones supporting them. The Defense Programs Milestone Reporting Tool provides the status, by quarter, of national-level and program-level milestones for the DSW program showing progress towards completion of annual performance measures.
Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) Program has baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures (ambitious targets because of the technical advancements required for their completion). Of the four FY 2010 measures, two baselines go back to FY 2003, one to FY 2004, and one to FY 2006. Program Directors maintain a detailed set of ambitious annual milestones and deliverables derived from the NNSA Strategic Plan and included in Directed Stockpile Work Program and Implementation Plans, and the approved baselines that support each of the annual measures. Site-level milestones that support the program milestones are documented in the Management & Operating contractors' Implementation Plans. NNSA DSW Work Authorizations to the sites are tied to the agreed-upon baselines and priorities as articulated in the above plans. During the year, the status of the program-level milestones are reported by the Directed Stockpile Work program managers quarterly with input from the responsible site.
Evidence: DSW Project Execution Plans, Warhead Certification Plans, National Nuclear Security Administration Requirements Planning Document, DSW Production and Planning Directive, Weapon Production Control Documents, and Master Nuclear Schedule all document Directed Stockpile Work (DSW)-specific planned work necessary to accomplish the ambitious targets and baselines for the annual DSW performance measures. The PART Measures Tab contains the baselines for the five measures. DSW Program Implementation Plans contain the program milestones that support the measures. The Defense Programs Milestone Reporting Tool contains the DSW milestone list and status, by quarter.
Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?
Explanation: By statute, the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) serves as the focal point for any collaborative and coordinated positions and decisions affecting the Nation's nuclear deterrent forces. The NWC brings together the NNSA and Defense organizations such as the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Operating Commands, and the Military Services who represent the military policy makers and users of the nuclear weapons stockpile. All stakeholders attend the Project Officers Group meetings to ensure overall goals of the individual weapons programs are met and provide the basis for the annual and long-term Directed Stockpile Program (DSW) performance targets. Collectively, the NWC produces the Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum, which provides the national-level policy direction for the stockpile. All DSW partners within the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), i.e., other Weapons Activities programs and the Management and Operating (M&O) Contractors, commit to and work towards the long-term and annual stockpile goals set by the NWC. The NNSA DSW federal managers and M&O contractors coordinate to determine the specific scope of work necessary for each of the sub-programs, e.g., Life Extension Programs, Stockpile Systems (enduring), Weapons Dismantlement and Disposition, and Stockpile Services (Production Support; Research & Development Support; Research & Development Certification & Safety; Management, Technology, and Production; Responsive Infrastructure; and, for FY 2010: Pit Manufacturing and Pit Manufacturing Technology). This work scope is then delineated in DSW Program and Implementation Plans and is provided to each supporting Site Office and M&O contractor by Work Authorization.
Evidence: The Joint DoD-DOE Memorandum of Agreement for the Joint Nuclear Weapons Council, 23 Mar 97, provides for the framework for coordination of interagency commitments for maintenance of the stockpile. The Nuclear Weapons Stockpile Memorandum documents the agreed work scope between DoD and NNSA. Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) Program Implementation Plans and Project Execution Plans document the roles and responsibilities of the federal program and campaign managers and nuclear weapons complex M&O contractors. Individual federal personnel Measures of Performance and evaluations ensure that federal personnel are committed to DSW program goals. Management and Operation (M&O) Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans and annual performance evaluations ensure that the M&O contractors are committed to DSW program goals.
Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?
Explanation: Independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality regularly evaluate the Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program's relevance and effectiveness. Periodic independent evaluations of the DSW-related activities have been conducted by groups such as: 1) the recently completed Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board Task Force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure), 2) a JASON panel (independent scientific group), 3) External Peer Review of the Application of Quantified Margins and Uncertainties and Pit Lifetime Review, and 4) the Secretary of Energy's 30-Day Review of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. Other independent evaluations have been conducted by various Department of Defense groups (e.g., U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group Stockpile Assessment Team Peer Reviews and Science & Technology groups). The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, U.S. Government Accountability Office, and DOE Inspector General also conduct independent reviews to evaluate aspects of the program (e.g., DOE Inspector General Audit Report on the W76 Life Extension Program). These external reviews are of sufficient scope and quality so as to assure annual nuclear weapons certification to the President.
Evidence: The above-named groups have produced the following reports: FY 2003 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, 11 Apr 03 (Foster Panel); Secretary of Energy Advisory Board Task Force on Nuclear Weapon Complex Infrastructure, 2005; JASON External Peer Review; Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board findings and recommendations; U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group Stockpile Assessment Team Peer Reviews; U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) Reports (e.g., GAO-07-243R, Nuclear Weapons: Annual Assessment of the Safety, Performance, and Reliability of the Nation's Stockpile, Feb 07 and GAO-07-36, National Nuclear Security Administration: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Management of the Nation's Nuclear Programs, Jan 07); and DOE Inspector General (IG) Reports(e.g., DOE/IG-0729, W76 Life Extension Program and IG-0697, The NNSA's Refurbishment of the B61, Aug 05). Explanation: Regular independent evaluations are of a scope and quality to evaluate the Directed Stockpile Work program's relevance and effectiveness Periodic independent evaluations of the Directed Stockpile Work-related activities have been conducted by Congressionally established groups (e.g., the recently completed Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board Task Force on the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure), Chiles Commission Reports, a JASON External Peer Review of the Application of Quantified Margins and Uncertainties and Pit Lifetime Review, the Secretary of Energy's 30-Day Review of the Stockpile Stewardship Program, various Department of Defense groups (e.g., U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group Stockpile Assessment Team Peer Reviews and Science & Technology groups),. The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, U.S. Government Accountability Office, and DOE Inspector General also conduct independent reviews to evaluate the performance of the major weapon programs (e.g., DOE Inspector General Audit Report on the W76 Life Extension Program). These external reviews are of sufficient scope and quality so as to assure annual nuclear weapons certification to the President.
Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program performance measures are directly tied to the budget in the multi-year National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP). The FYNSP is included in each year's annual President's budget request to Congress. The NNSA framework for resource allocation decisions to support the FYNSP are made annually in the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process, where program needs are translated into requirements included in the budget. The DSW program supports the process by including its requirements (see stakeholder involvement in Q2.5), on a priority basis. Resource trade-offs are evaluated based on their impact on program performance. The resulting DSW budget request is explicitly tied to the accomplishment of its long-term goal and targets, annual targets, and supporting technical milestones. The initial DSW Program Implementation Plan details how the program will execute the President's Budget, including allocation of work and resources to the Management and Operating contractors. After Congressional appropriation, the DSW Program Implementation Plan is revised accordingly, including performance targets, milestones, and site resource and work allocation. The program assigns specific resource and work allocations to the sites via the NNSA Approved Funding Program and Work Authorization processes. The program has its own Budget and Reporting structure so that, during budget execution, program and financial performance can be corporately monitored and assessed to allow results to influence future budget requests. The cost for the NNSA Federal employees is carried in a separate NNSA program direction account, as required by the Congress.
Evidence: The linkage is displayed in the President's Budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the NNSA's Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP); NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation guidance and implementing documents located on the NNSA website. The DSW briefing materials presented at the annual Defense Programs FYNSP Programming Meeting identify the resources needed to complete future program activities. The NNSA FY 2004 and FY 2005 Decision Memorandum; FY 2006, FY 2007, FY 2008 and FY 2009 NNSA Administrator's Final Recommendations; and FY 2008 and FY 2009 Department of Energy Program Decision Memorandum provide evidence documenting that budget requests tie prior year program accomplishments to future program activities and annual and long-term performance goals. The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP, annual appropriations, and corresponding Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) Program Implementation Plans show the relationships of budget to performance.
Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?
Explanation: Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program management has taken specific and meaningful steps to improve its strategic planning over the past several years. The following are several examples of related activity: 1) The DSW participation in the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process strictly adheres to the over-arching DOE, NNSA, and Defense Programs strategic planning guidance, on an annual basis and within Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) limits; 2) The DSW performance goal is directly linked to the DOE Strategic Plan; 3) Each Life Extension Program refurbishment and Safety Basis program effort applies earned value management to cost and schedule; 4) Other major DSW refurbishment efforts are managed (cost, scope, and schedule) by specific weapon system; 5) Weapon program managers have effective control over their program strategic planning, implementation, and specific decision-making processes; and 6) Weapon program teams address alternative design approaches and conduct trade-off analyses (competition) between cost, schedule, risk, and performance to arrive at the most appropriate options (recommendations) for consideration in refurbishment decisions. The above past deficiencies no longer affect or impact the DSW program since they have been sufficiently addressed and corrected by senior DP management
Evidence: The DOE Strategic Plan, National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Strategic Plan, and annual Defense Programs Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation planning Guidance provide strategic planning direction to DSW. Ongoing Systems Engineering approach; DoD 2001 NPR; DoD Strategic Capability Assessment; DoD 2001 Nuclear Posture Review; DoD Strategic Capability Assessment; DOE-DoD Phase 6.X Process; NNSA Life Extension Option Process; Nuclear Weapons Complex Transformation Study, Jun 05; and the DP Technology Maturation process all demonstrate the application of strategic cooperation and coordination with the DoD customer and appropriate application to specific weapons systems.
Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?
Explanation: The major Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program capital acquisition efforts concern weapon refurbishments. Based on the age and design of the weapons, surveillance results, and specific Department of Defense needs, the program analyzes requirements and builds a tentative out-year refurbishment schedule (currently to FY 2040). Annually, DSW conducts program-wide analyses of cost, scope, and schedule as a prelude to the Defense Programs Programming phase of the Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process to form a recommended multi-year Future-Years Nuclear Security Program. It also does special-focus analyses on new/immediate technical issues/problems. At weapons-specific level, the Life Extension Option or Phase 6.X Process for each major nuclear warhead or bomb refurbishment provides phases or stages where the program team addresses alternative design approaches and conducts trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance to arrive at the appropriate options for consideration in the refurbishment decision. For example, the draft B61 Options Study evaluated bomb options for the stockpile and balanced cost, schedule, and risk for management decision making. Further refinement of the NNSA proactive assessment of its management processes has led to deploying an optional funding and management process for certain weapons activities. This process provides NNSA with the ability to respond to unanticipated events or emerging threats (e.g., innovations by an adversary)??all the while continuing to carry out the day-to-day activities in support of the existing stockpile.
Evidence: The Defense Programs Program Management Manual provides for a systems engineering framework to establish program cost, schedule, and cost baselines. The annually updated Life Extension Option tables provides alternative design approaches and associated trade-offs for the future stockpile. The NNSA Production and Planning Directive 2008-0 provides the current direction for the DSW Work program, including alternatives analyses and production decisions. The weapons refurbishment chart therein presents a summation of stockpile modeling and long term analyses leading to future production planning.
If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and (if relevant) to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work activities are unique and cannot be directly compared to any public or commercial program.
Evidence: N/A
Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?
Explanation: Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) uses the Life Extension Option (LEO) process to guide Research & Development (R&D) refurbishment-related funding requests and decisions to ensure the certifiability of the stockpile. DSW starts with an annual DSW Program Planning Summit to assess priorities and budget, scope, and schedule. Resulting priorities are documented in a set of Defense Programs priorities, which are evaluated through the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process. After NNSA and Departmental evaluation in the PPBE process, meritorious programs are included in the President's annual budget request. After Congressional appropriation, priorities are reevaluated based on actual funding and the plan and milestones are adjusted accordingly. Priorities are further reevaluated during the budget execution year and resource adjustments are made. Funding decisions are validated by the Nuclear Weapons Council. At all stages of the process, programs must compete with other programs for funding.
Evidence: Annually, the Defense Programs (DP) Program Planning Guidance provides for Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) direction of funded activities for the upcoming President's budget request. DSW notes and briefings reflect the conduct of two annual budget planning summits, with program managers and site Management and Operating contractors, for the execution year and out-year, which provide for internal program funding direction. Annual DP Programming meetings (and briefings) integrate DSW priorities into an overall DP priority. National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation (PPBE) documents on the NNSA web site documents the integration of the DP (including DSW) priorities into an NNSA-wide priority list. DSW, DP, and NNSA PPBE Programming documents depict this prioritization. DSW Program Plans and Program Implementation Plans, and the NNSA Production and Planning Directive document the priorities, including those supported by funding.
|Section 2 - Strategic Planning
|Section 3 - Program Management
Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work Program Managers routinely collect timely and accurate information to evaluate the performance of their programs and provide senior managers with quarterly reports of program progress. Quarterly Program Reviews and Management Reviews are conducted with Site Offices and Management & Operating Contractors to review the status of ongoing activities. Implemented in FY 2004, the Defense Programs Milestone Reporting Tool database currently contains all National Level/Level 1 (highest level) and Program Level/Level 2 milestones under change control. For Directed Stockpile Work (DSW), these include eight Level 1 milestones concerning major deliverables and one hundred Level 2 milestones relating to Life Extension Programs by weapon, Stockpile Systems by weapon, Dismantlements, and Stockpile Services, including Research & Development (R&D). The Milestone Reporting Tool is updated not less than quarterly by the Management and Operating contractors and the responsible DSW federal weapons program managers. The Life Extension Programs conduct quarterly program reviews; the R&D activities that are conducted at the nuclear weapons laboratories are reviewed in detail at least twice a year to ascertain the progress and compliance with program goals and objectives; and other activities do so at least annually.
Evidence: The following program reviews require Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program managers to collect and analyze performance information and make associated corrections: quarterly Life Extension Program Reviews; periodic program reviews; Mid-Year DSW Research and Development Program Reviews; Defense Programs Quarterly Program Reviews; and annual National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)Administrator Program Reviews. Chapter 4 (Section 4.3) of the NNSA Development and Production Manual details the process of reporting and accounting for the nuclear weapon stockpile inventory.
Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?
Explanation: At the National Level, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program management are held accountable in the Nuclear Weapons Council. Within the NNSA, Federal Program Managers are responsible for providing guidance and allocating funding through the work authorization process. They are also required to monitor costs and schedule monthly. These managers are held accountable through performance metrics in their individual measures of performance and annual appraisals that are linked to the program's performance results. Management and Operating contractors and other partners are tasked through Work Authorizations, project plans, and milestones. They are held accountable via Performance Evaluation Plans that link to program and multi-site milestones. Performance is monitored using a documented set of milestone-related targets and measures, the Milestone Reporting Tool database, and annual program/performance reviews. Annually performance reports are completed, with DSW input, that determine contractor award fees.
Evidence: The minutes of Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) meetings provide information on the NWC oversight of DSW efforts. Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) Measures of Performance (MOPs) for individual federal program managers contain performance targets for cost and schedule and their annual appraisals depict the results. The FY 2007 and FY 2008 Management and Operating contractor Performance Evaluation Plans include DSW performance expectations and FY 2007 performance evaluations contain the results for these DSW program partners.
Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program funding for the budget execution year is projected in annual DSW Program Implementation Plans and updated based on Congressional appropriations. Funds are obligated via the National Nuclear Security Administration Approved Funding Program documents and linked to required work via NNSA Work Authorizations (both refer to the current DSW planning document). Fund expenditures are tracked monthly to assure funds are obligated timely for intended purposes. The DSW Program Managers routinely conduct reviews (quarterly or semi-annually, depending on the program) with their teams to evaluate the progress in obligating and spending program resources. Defense Programs financial staff brief the status of program funding quarterly to Defense Programs, program, Site Office, and Management and Operating contractor leadership. The Department's FY 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements received an unqualified audit opinion by the Office of the Inspector General.
Evidence: Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) Program Implementation Plans, Enhanced Management Project Execution Plans, and Work Authorizations contain planned budget against work scope. The Defense Programs Quarterly Program Review briefings contain program-related financial analysis data. The DOE FY 2007 Agency Financial Report contains the unqualified audit opinion for the Department. Monthly DOE Integrated Management Navigation System (iManage) Data Warehouse (IDW) financial reports are distributed to the federal program managers and contain program expenditures to date. The federal audit clearinghouse provides U.S. Government Accountability Office and DOE Inspector General audits conducted on DSW program elements, as they occur.
Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?
Explanation: As a part of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program uses a number of different evaluation procedures and criteria to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of investment dollars. The program has a baseline cost analysis and projection for the cost of the refurbishment of the W76-1 warhead, a major component of the current DSW program, which is to be complete in 2021. The target for this measure is to reduce program cost by 2.0% relative to the baseline cost analysis In addition, NNSA has a number of procedures to achieve efficiencies throughout the organization, including this program. The primary procedure is the NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process. This process is linked to the laboratory Management and Operating (M&O) contractors and their respective contracts through Performance Evaluation Plans and evaluations that include program and multi-site milestones/performance metrics to drive cost efficiency and program priorities across the Nuclear Weapons Complex. The M&O contracts include financial and contractual incentives if technical performance metrics are achieved. Second, to measure and achieve greater program effectiveness, DSW management has established a more uniform project and cost management structure across the Complex. This structure includes full implementation of a DSW Work Breakdown Structure in FY 2008. Third, selected portions of the DSW program apply Earned Value Management to cost and schedule. Fourth, DSW senior management has conducted detailed reviews of all applicable procedures at Pantex Plant and Y-12 National Security Complex with a view to improving "through-put." In addition, some specific examples of other efficiency metrics within the DSW program include: 1) Development of a W76-1 Integrated Project Plan with identifiable critical linkages between the Kansas City Plant and Sandia National Laboratories, scheduled Cost Control Board meetings, active Concurrent Design and Manufacturing process to achieve cost and production efficiencies, centralized procurement processes, and enterprise project management activities to monitor execution cost, schedule, and milestones; 2) Coordination of Complex-wide procurements of equipment and services via a Supply Chain Management Center; 3) Implementation of the Integrated Digital Enterprise for improved product realization; and 4) Production and disassembly throughput improvements at the Y-12 National Security Complex and Pantex Plant.
Evidence: The Defense Programs Program Management Manual provides the procedures required by the federal Directed Stockpile Work Program/Sub-program Managers to develop performance measures for Management and Operating (M&O) contractors. The FY 2007 and 2008 M&O Performance Evaluation Plans and FY 2007 reports detail DSW involvement with M&O evaluation. The current DOE Budget and Reporting codes and the DSW Work Breakdown Structure detail the DSW codes. The Life Extension Program and SS-21 project plans detail earned value metrics and Quarterly Program Review briefings detail results to date. The Pantex and Y-12 Throughput Improvement Plans detail the efficiency actions taken at those sites. The efficiency measure status is reflected in the PART measures Tab.
Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program managers collaborate and coordinate with Department of Defense stakeholders regarding the nuclear weapons stockpile through the Nuclear Weapons Council. The Nuclear Weapons Council structure includes relevant Defense organizations such as the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Operating Commands, and the Military Services who represent the actual users of the nuclear weapons stockpile. For example, close collaboration is essential to: 1) perform the annual weapons assessments and certification, 2) coordinate between the design and production agencies to assure manufacturability and cost efficiencies, 3) maintain Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities to enable design production activities, and 4) compliment the activities of supporting campaigns which work toward common Stockpile Stewardship Program goals and objectives. Other coordination is performed daily through membership in working committees within the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, Project Officers Groups, and many Defense-funded R& D agencies. Further examples of cooperation includes DSW-related science work with the DOE Office of Science and with selected allied nations. Culmination of collaboration between and among DSW partners and related programs is the issuance of the Annual Weapon Assessment Reports (signed by the Secretaries of Energy & Defense) to the President ensuring that the existing stockpile continues to meet its military requirements without the need to resume underground nuclear testing. Additionally, the National Nuclear Security Administration Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process integrates Directed Stockpile Work priorities with the Readiness and Engineering Campaigns, and the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program, effectively incorporating weapon risk mitigation strategies to ensure that delivery dates for Life Extension Program First Production Units are achieved.
Evidence: The Directed Stockpile Work Program Implementation Plans and Enhanced Management Project Execution Plan contain sections on integration with other programs. The Stockpile Stewardship Plan documents an integrated Defense Programs plan that coordinates across all programs. Nuclear Weapons Council Project Officer Group charters provide communication channels for resolution of DoD and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) program issues. The NNSA Production and Planning Directive documents the President's directed stockpile requirements for DoD and NNSA.
Does the program use strong financial management practices?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program is governed by the Department of Energy (DOE) financial management policies, procedures, and practices that meet statutory requirements. The DOE provides the accounting services for all National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) programs, including DSW. The DOE's FY 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements received an unqualified audit opinion by the DOE Office of the Inspector General. The financial management processes used by NNSA meet all statutory requirements and provide appropriate internal control. The Budget and Program organization within NNSA reviews cost expenditure reports on a monthly basis and monitors obligations and costs for all projects at participating contractor sites. NNSA accounting services are free of material internal control weaknesses. The DSW Program and Sub-program Managers and staff review financial reports on a monthly basis to monitor obligations and costs for all projects and sites.
Evidence: The Department of Energy's Inspector General produced its "Report on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 2007 Consolidated Financial Statements," which gave an unqualified audit opinion. The Department of Energy Financial Management Orders specify the requirements for financial management (see the Department of Energy FY 2007 Agency Financial Report). The DOE Integrated Management Navigation System (iManage) Data Warehouse (IDW) contains the DOE Standard Accounting and Reporting System (STARS) financial reports. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation guidance documents located on the NNSA web site provide evidence of the strong financial management practices employed by the program and Reporting System (STARS) financial data reports.
Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?
Explanation: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process and the assignment of Program Managers for each warhead and bomb effort have been major steps toward resolving prior year management issues. Definition of steps to comply with the process and specific Program Management approaches have helped NNSA program teams institute needed controls and measurement techniques to help guide Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) projects to their successful conclusion. Internally, the NNSA uses separate Campaigns (tailored programs) to provide the DSW with required specialized scientific, engineering, and production readiness resources on a priority basis. The DOE Inspector General audited several high profile Defense Programs projects, including construction and operation of testing facilities, the annual assessment process, and resolution of Significant Finding Investigations, and identified areas for improvement which have the support of NNSA management. For example, in FY 2004, two Directed Stockpile Work Life Extension Programs were re-baselined to align funding to support the First Production Unit delivery dates. Re-baselining efforts were coordinated through detailed estimates at completions; project management principles established from lessons learned; and implementation of the NNSA Quality Control-1 policy. Although re-baselining affected multiple sites and project prioritization in the outyears, the Life Extension Programs are on track to meet delivery dates.
Evidence: The Defense Programs Program Management Manual provides the framework for addressing management deficiencies (e.g., program manager qualification skills, and Contracting Officer Representative approvals and change control). Examples of reviews and audits that have revealed past management deficiencies, and recommended improvements that have now been implemented, are: 1) U.S. General Accounting Office, Nuclear Weapons: Improved Management Needed to Implements the Stockpile Stewardship Program Effectively, GAO-01-48 (Washington, D.C Dec. 14, 2000); 2) U.S. General Accounting Office, NNSA Nuclear Weapon Reports, GAO-02-889R (Washington, D.C. July 2002); 3) IG Report: DOE/IG-0614, NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation Process, August 2003; 4) IG Report: DOE/IG-0538, Management Challenges at the Department of Energy, December 2001; 5) IG Report: DOE/IG-0581, NNSA's Nuclear Explosive Safety Study Program, January 2003; 6) IG Report: DOE/IG-0646, NNSA's Enhanced Surveillance Campaign, April 2004; and 7) IG Report: DOE/IG-0575, Resolution of Significant Finding Investigation Recommendations, November 2002.
Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?
Explanation: The major Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program capital acquisition efforts concern weapon refurbishments. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process improvements and the assignment of Program Managers for each warhead and bomb effort have been major steps toward resolving management issues. This year's implementation of a DSW Work Breakdown Structure should assist in this area. The use of updated multi-year Program Plans and annual execution year Program Implementation Plans, with performance measures, Life Extension Program Project Plans and schedules, Production and Planning Directives, and configuration-controlled National Level/Level 1 and Program Level/Level 2 technical milestones for major program efforts (with corresponding site Level/Level 3 milestones) now are defining deliverables that are more closely tied to cost and schedule requirements. The new process and clarification of specific Program Management approaches have enabled the NNSA program teams to better institute needed controls and measurement techniques that will ultimately help guide Directed Stockpile Work projects to their successful conclusion.
Evidence: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process allocates funds to program requirements. DSW Program Plans, Program Implementation Plans, and Enhanced Management Project Execution Plans identify program risks to cost and schedule. The Defense Programs Milestone Reporting Tool contains the status of the DSW milestones, since 2004, by quarter. The President's Budget/NNSA Future-Years Nuclear Security Program contains the DSW multi-year performance targets and results. The DOE Integrated Management Navigation System Data Warehouse contains detailed DSW cost data for FY 2006-2008.
For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain program quality?
Explanation: The principal Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) research and development (R&D) activities support the Refurbishment Schedule and the Annual Assessment Report reported to the President. This requires that all work be done to a high standard of quality by the supporting laboratories and plants as well as their sub-contractors. The program plans, monitors, and self-assesses program quality through metrics described in Quality Assurance Plans for departmental elements and contractors. Each Management and Operating (M&O) contractors' site Quality Assurance Plan is used to establish processes for quality management systems that meet or exceed program requirements for every activity in each weapon life-cycle phase. The Quality Assurance Plans include levels of authority, interfaces for assessing the work products (e.g., engineering releases to the production facilities), and management and risk mitigation processes with an emphasis on continuous improvement. Each information technology system's software Quality Assurance Plan is maintained to ensure that developed or purchased software will meet program requirements. The DSW program also provides for Inter-laboratory Peer Reviews to provide a "dual" validation process for ensuring quality control and to identify as many "unknown unknowns" as possible, early in the certification process.
Evidence: The following documents provide explicit direction on maintaining and funding program quality: DOE Order 414.1A, Quality Assurance; NNSA Quality Management Policy (QC-1) Rev. 10; and Management and Operating Contractor (Laboratory, Test Site, and plant) Quality Assurance Plans.
|Section 3 - Program Management
|Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program has made good progress toward attaining its long-term performance goals. It completed on time a prior measure (W87 Life Extension Program: FY2007) and it is meeting its major measures of stockpile availability and requirements for stockpile maintenance and production to assure military operational requirements are met. In addition, the stockpile evaluation activities are being conducted to allow the assessment of stockpile safety and performance. The B61 (a bomb) Life Extension Program is on-track for completion in FY 2009. The W76 Life Extension Program was on-track until a major technical issue arose. This is getting strong management focus and will likely regain schedule by the end of FY08, but future costs could increase due to a number of factors. Technical milestones that support these targets and other efforts are generally on track. Long-term annual performance goals are assessed with program managers through Quarterly Program Reviews and Milestone Reporting Tool updates. The planning for future Directed Stockpile Work weapon refurbishment efforts and other long-range activities is assessed on an annual basis using the Life Extension Options process and associated Component Description Document and Production and Planning Directive.
Evidence: The President's Budget/National Nuclear Security Administration Future-Years Nuclear Security Program and Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) Program Implementation Plans each contain a multi-year performance matrix of DSW targets and results. The Defense Programs (DP) Milestone Reporting Tool contains the status of the DSW milestones, since 2004, by quarter. The NNSA Production and Planning Directive documents production and surveillance delivery schedules for the current Fiscal Year and beyond to meet the DoD stockpile needs. The NNSA Component Description Document documents component level delivery schedules to meet the DoD-related stockpile needs.
Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program sets ambitious annual performance targets that it consistently attempts to exceed. However, because of reductions associated with the year-long FY 2006 Continuing Resolution, Defense Programs (DP) senior program management adjusted schedule risk and pushed project activities into out-year schedules while maintaining highest priority Life Extension Program First Production Unit and surveillance cycles and deadlines. In 2007, a major technical issue arose concerning the W76 Life Extension Program that prevented the achievement of two critical W76 annual performance objectives for 2007. These two deliverables will likely be on-track by the end of FY 2008 or beginning of FY 2009. Other annual DSW performance goals and the technical milestones supporting them are on-track. The DSW program management jointly plans and schedules annual goals with the Department of Defense through the Nuclear Weapons Council process to assure that the program is efficiently and effectively meeting the needs of the Nation's nuclear deterrent policies. This process is managed to assure a safe, reliable, and secure nuclear warhead stockpile remains available to the President to meet the National Security policies and related military requirements.
Evidence: The Report on Stockpile Assessment (ROSA) documents the results of annual surveillance and certification activities for the stockpile. The quarterly DOE Joule and annual Performance and Accountability reports document the Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) achievement of its annual performance goals. The FY 2009 President's Budget/FY 2009-2013 National Nuclear Security Administration Future-Years Nuclear Security Program has a multi-year (FY 2005-2013) performance matrix with the DSW annual targets and results.
Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?
Explanation: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) seeks to improve Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) cost efficiencies by generating cost improvements that can be monitored by: 1) Implementing better cost estimation systems and baseline funding, and 2) Running effective Cost Control Boards (e.g., W76-1). NNSA annually establishes program performance measures for M&O contractors to evaluate contractor efficiency and effectiveness and to determine contract incentive award fees. Federal Program Managers use detailed monthly financial reports to closely track expenditures and obligations. The re-engineered NNSA Federal workforce focuses on clearly defined roles and responsibilities that drive improved efficiencies in Directed Stockpile Work direction and management. Site-based weapon product realization continues to be judged by a "faster, better, cheaper" business/manufacturing model when compared to earlier evaluation periods. The revised program budget and accounting code structure increases contractor cost accounting consistency, integrity of accounts and accuracy of performance reporting. In 2007, the program achieved a lower efficiency gain than previously projected for 2009-2021 production costs for the W76-1 Life Extension Program, but some gains were achieved. Program managers expect that they should be on track in FY 2009. Given the small gain, this question merits a Small Extent (rather than a No), but future costs may increase, especially if further technical problems arise.
Evidence: FY 2008 Dismantlement Plan to Congress documents improved efficiencies within the DSW Dismantlement program. The Management and Operating (M&O) contractor Performance Evaluation Plans and federal evaluation process documents the cost effectiveness in the new contracting strategy, as well as the addition of Defense Program Multi-Site Milestones that are "All Pass-All Fail" for all M&O contractors, regardless of individual effort. The Y-12 National Security Complex and Pantex Plant Throughput Improvement Plans identify action items for the M&O contractors to complete to meet efficiency goals. The Supply Chain Management Center at the Kansas City Plant demonstrates cost effectiveness of DOE/NNSA purchasing of non-nuclear weapon components and piece parts. Annually, the W76-1 LEP costs are documented in classified Selected Acquisition Reports.
Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?
Explanation: No other government or private agency has a purpose or goals similar to this program, nor the plans or specialized infrastructure to meet the program mission, scope, or program goals. However, program management does monitor the execution of other DOE/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) programs and non-DOE programs with related processes to improve program management and execution. The Directed Stockpile Work is a federal government program with a unique mission and where Management & Operating contractors perform highly technical and classified Research and Development and production activities to maintain the U.S. nuclear warhead deterrent forces.
Evidence: N/A
Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?
Explanation: The Directed Stockpile Work program achieves its annual and long-term targets under the continual oversight of independent technical panels/expert groups focused on current evaluations of program elements. As evaluation reports are issued, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) addresses identified concerns with the goal of continuous Stockpile Stewardship Program improvement. Within Defense Programs (DP), the Kansas City Plant achieved International Standards Organization 9000 (ISO 9000) status in managing its production facilities with the highest certifiable quality. The NNSA is striving for similar levels of high quality performance among its other Management & Operating contractors across the weapons complex. Additionally, the independent science group, JASON, evaluated the use of a DSW technical approach called Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties for the annual Stockpile Stewardship Program stockpile assessment process, concluding that Quantification of Margins and Uncertainties is an effective tool in validating stockpile reliability. The JASONs also completed the Pit Lifetime Review with favorable results. External independent program evaluations of DSW activities are routinely conducted by Congressionally established Review Panels, U.S. Government Accountability Office, DOE Inspector General's Office, NNSA Administrator's Advisory Committee, Department of Defense expert groups (e.g., the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group Stockpile Assessment Team and Science and Technology Groups), and other pre-eminent external review groups that evaluate the total scope of program activities. In FY 2005, a Secretary of Energy Advisory Board report identified steps required by NNSA to become more responsive in maintaining a smaller stockpile. The DSW program immediately responded with a viable approach to transition with the Reliable Replacement Warhead design process. These external reviews are of sufficient scope, scrutiny, and quality so as to assure the continued programmatic validation of the annual nuclear weapons certification to the President.
Evidence: The Defense Nuclear Facility Safety Board provides ongoing scrutiny and independent evaluations of NNSA nuclear safety, reliability and other programs at all sites; the U.S. Government Accountability Office conducts periodic independent reviews of varied NNSA program elements; the DOE Inspector General conducts independent internal reviews of NNSA DSW programs and issue reports and recommendations to DP management for increased program improvement, effectiveness and efficiency; Secretary of Energy Advisory Board report on the Nuclear Weapons Complex provided extensive independent analyses of current NWC operations and provided recommendations for future Complex transformation and reduced NEC footprint; Strategic Advisory Group Science & Technology reviews provide ongoing independent scientific analyses of new technology applications for weapons safety and reliability; Nuclear Weapons Council Project Officers Group reviews provide independent analyses of refurbishment options and improvements; and JASON External Peer Reviews providing independent review of nuclear weapon stockpile futures options.
Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?
Explanation: The major Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) program capital acquisition efforts concern the weapon refurbishments. The DSW Program Managers establish annual budgets and performance metrics for the Management & Operating Contractors to achieve program goals and milestones. The program performance goals are monitored through performance of stockpile maintenance, evaluation, dismantlement and disposal, production support, and Research & Development work elements and are measured against budget and schedule identified in the Directed Stockpile Work Program Plan. For Directed Stockpile Work enhanced management projects (Life Extension Programs and Seamless Safety for the 21st Century projects), Defense Programs instituted an earned value management system for assessing life-cycle project cost and schedule performance. The Federal Program Managers work with each of the Management & Operating contractor project teams to identify budget and schedule issues and to facilitate project integration throughout the course of the projects to ensure product delivery, on time and within budget. When adjustments are required, the Federal Program Managers and the Management & Operating contractors work together to redefine the planned scope and milestones to meet program needs. Revisions and impacts to other DSW sub-programs are considered and higher-level NNSA managers are included to evaluate the crosscutting impacts to the total Directed Stockpile Work effort. Detailed process analyses at the Pantex Plant and Y-12 National Security Complex have resulted in significant improvements in "throughput" - resulting in significant cost savings and schedule improvements. To date, these activities have worked well, except that the FY 2007 W76 Life Extension Program technical issue has resulted in both schedule delays and cost increases. The W76-1 program cost remains a concern, as some risk reduction activities relating to the ability to meet future cost projections had to be reduced or deferred in order to meet current milestones.
Evidence: The President's Budget for the National Nuclear Security Administration and the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program provides a multi-year look at budgets and performance targets and results. The Defense Programs Program Management Manual details the program management policy for DSW to follow. The DSW Program Plan, Program Implementation Plans, and project plans detail planned resources against expected performance. Quarterly Program Review briefings contain milestone and financial status, by quarter. DOE Financial Information Management System reports contain details on fund expenditures. DOE FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report and DOE FY 2007 Agency Performance Report; and FY 2007 and FY 2008 Quarterly program-related Joule/performance Reports contain the status of performance against annual targets. The Pantex and Y-12 Throughput Improvement Plans document the analysis and recommendations for improvements at these two sites; accompanying files document the actions taken and results.
|Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability


text:
Tough watches are reserved for those who love and need toughness more than anything else. But what do you define as toughness?
There are watches that are designed to withstand extreme shock and vibration but yet highly sensitive to chemical exposure such as insect repellent or even sweat. There may not be a universal metric as to what defines a watch as being tough. But I see suitability of a watch to be used by the military as probably the best testament to this quality.
If we go by this metric alone, it is easy to conclude that some of the most rugged watches in the world have to be the likes of G-Shock and Luminox military watches.
Ever since Casio unveiled the first G-Shock watch to the world 30 years ago, G-Shock watches continues to build their reputations as the toughest watches on the planet.
There are also tough watches other than G-Shock but most of them excel only in specific conditions that they are optimally designed for. Furthermore, no other brand offer such extensive tough watches collection as Casio G-Shock does.
Brands such as Seiko may have earned respect from the community for some of their watch models but that is all. None of them, not even the likes of Luminox and Suunto, is able to diminish Casio G-Shock's status as the tough watch specialist.
Tough watch hunters are made up of different types of people.
If you are an adventure seeker who loves parachuting or skydiving, only the toughest watches can survive the menacing forces of gravity. If you are an adventure seeker who loves scuba diving, only the toughest watches can survive the pressure at 100m below the ocean surface. If you are an active member of the military, you jolly well know any battlefield is unpredictable and only the toughest watches can survive the harshest and extreme condition of a battlefield.
If your watch is required to survive both inland and on water, G-Shock Frogman is something that is well worth considering. While you may still find tough watches other than G-Shock that are suitable for use by professional scuba diver, only G-Shock aviation is good enough well, for the aviators.
G-Shock Military Inspired Watches
Casio has also released few G-Shock military inspired series. The latest treat for military watch lovers come from G-Shock's camouflage line-up.
Other than extraordinary toughness, G-Shock military watches boast one additional characteristic.
These military watches have been carefully designed to be worn along with camouflage uniforms. Typical camouflage colors such as olive green, navy blue and black have become the characteristic of military inspired line of G-Shock watches.
However, with the battlefield shifting from jungle to the desert, Casio is quick to address the growing demand. Recently, white has been added to the typical camouflage colors that have been the trademark of G-Shock military series. If you like the idea of a white tough watch, white G-Shock collection may be your cup of tea.
Luminox Military Watches
Luminox military watches are popular alternatives to those who are looking for tough watches other than G-Shock. Design of G-Shock watches is highly polarizing. With extra large bezel, you can tell with one look if a watch you are looking at is a G-Shock.
You either love it or hate it. Luminox watches is not the first thing that comes to mind when one is exploring alternatives for the toughest watches, but they are in fact, among the best alternatives to G-Shock.
Luminox started way back in 1989. It was only in 1993 that the brand received its first taste of stardom when it was commissioned by US Navy SEAL to develop a watch that the world's most elite forces can use and depend on. Up till today, the watches developed for this purpose are still marketed under the same Luminox 3000 series.
To be selected by US Navy SEAL and Air Force definitely qualifies Luminox watches as tough but being tough is not quite the same as being the toughest.
Take a look at the video below to see how guys at Casio G-Shock take their game of toughness to an entirely unimaginative level. Do you believe that you can hammer down a G-Shock and it will still survive intact? Take a look at the video and let me know what you think.
Other Tough Watches than G-Shock
Lesser known alternatives for tough watches other than G-Shock include Marathon and Suunto.
These names may not be familiar among casual watch seekers but they do have strong reputation in their own right.
For example, the latter makes some amazing watches for adventure seekers and Suunto dive watches are popular among professional divers. If you are looking for watches that boast not only toughness but also style, selected models from brands such as Seiko and Citizen are definitely worthy of your consideration.
Seiko SKX007 is one model that regularly pops up with the mention of watch that is both stylish and tough. Seiko BFK SKA371 is another model that has attracted quite a cult-like following. This is following the watch's ability to withstand boiling temperature, weight of a car and many more.
In summary, I think G-Shock is still the champion when it comes to rugged watches. To me, the question is not about which brand but which G-Shock model is the toughest. Do not be confused with the G-Shock military term used. G-Shock military inspired series simply means that they are going to be of camouflage color. Take a look at our simple guide and see how you can decode G-Shock serial number instantly. If you are looking for the toughest digital watch, you only need to look at G-Shock Master of G series.
If you are looking for the toughest analog watch, the story is of a much more different picture. If I had to pick 3 contenders for the World's toughest watches, they would be G-Shock GWA1000FC-5A, Luminox F-117 Nighthawk 6400 Series and Marathon Chronograph Pilot.
Suunto Core: Made for the Most Avid Sportsmen
For avid outdoorsmen, the ultimate search for the best outdoor watch can seem daunting, but the Suunto Core All Black watch can make that search worthwhile. Whether one is looking for a barometer, an altimeter, or a compass, this best tough watch is a rewarding purchase. Suunto Core All Black Reviews Feature Highlights The Suunto Core All Black has many key features that make it one of highest watches on the best tough watch list available on the market today. This incredible watch offers a barometer, an altimeter, a compass, temperature...read more
Suunto Ambit2: An Athlete's Performance Propeller
Suunto, the manufacturer behind some of the most trusted sports watches and diving instruments unveil the Ambit2, their latest sports watch. As trusted as the brand is, Suunto does not stand alone in the development of sports watches, and faces quite a bit of competition from consumers. So what does the Ambit2 do, and how does it stand apart from the competition? Who is it For Though designed as a tough watch primarily intended for divers in mind, the Ambit2 covers a variety of outdoor activities, and is readily embraced by athletes of...read more
Suunto Vector Wristop Computer:The Reliable Personal Assistant for Sports Enthusiasts
A wristwatch is a reflection of the character of the person wearing it, and that same logic defines the high-performance, rugged timepieces worn by outdoor enthusiasts. If you refer to the various Suunto watch reviews, you will learn that the brand Suunto has represented this ideal for over a decade. The brand is well-reputed for creating the best tough watch designs in a market where adopters of professional outdoor gear only accept the finest items. A Take on Suunto Vector It's a Wristop Computer Made popular by active outdoor types,...read more
G-Shock GBX6900B: The Smart & Energy Efficient
True to the popular Casio G-Shock name, the GBX6900B-1 is a blend of toughness and multi-functionality aimed at outdoor enthusiasts. An injection of mobile technology elevates this member of the elite best sports watch category past comparable wristwatches by integrating Bluetooth 4.0 technology, delivering features normally only found on high-end smartphones. Does G-Shock GBX6900B-1 Live Up to Its Expectation? The G-shock 6900 Bluetooth Edition promotes the typical rugged styling of the Casio brand, placing emphasis on the chunky case and...read more
Traser Classic: Probably the Classiest Military-Style Watch
A passion for durable construction lights up the thought processes of the Swiss engineers as effectively as the tritium gas lights up the elegant movement of the hands across the face of the Big Date Pro Blue. The Traser Classic Chronograph is all about light and military styling, pairing smooth analog movement with a stainless steel black frame. Precision guides the sweep of the hands, illuminating the constraints of accuracy with a luminosity brighter than that offered by standard watches. Taking on Traser Classic Chronograph This is the...read more

subset: commoncrawl


text:
November 24, 2014
It's a great way to get your kids out of the city and onto the farm for a day. True Buddy Farms is hosting their 2nd Annual Pumpkin Festival Sunday, October 6 from Noon - 4 p.m..
The Pumpkin Festival will have farm animals, hayrack rides, agricultural displays, games, music, vendors, food and fun. $5 entry fee per person.
5k trail run starts at 1:00 p.m. and 1 M walk starts at 1:30 p.m. Registration for this is still open at $25.
All proceeds will go towards funding programs and facilities throughout the year.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or email@example.com.


text:
David Moyes has revealed he is in regular contact with Sir Alex Ferguson as he continues his journey through his first season in charge of Manchester United.
Even after 15 years as a manager, Moyes is facing new experiences at Old Trafford, such as how to juggle his resources during a busy period of fixtures that includes his first Champions League games.
But Moyes revealed his predecessor, who watched United's win over Crystal Palace from the stands, is always available to offer his thoughts and advice if needed.
"Sir Alex was at the game on Saturday and I shared some time with him and talked about the game," said the Reds boss. "I've not talked to him about Leverkusen, Sociedad and Shakhtar. But I speak to him quite regularly and talked to him recently about the number of games we've got coming up, and how he would usually use the squad at times like this."
Moyes also benefitted from a meeting with Sir Bobby Charlton in which the Reds legend talked about the ethos of the club.
"It was a really important moment for me, when Sir Bobby said he wanted to come and see me," Moyes added. "When he came in he was fantastic. He's an incredibly humble man.
"He explained what it meant to be at United, explained what managers here should be like and then he talked about football. He's very intelligent and knowledgeable about the game.
"I found his company great. After every game he comes into the dressing room and talks with us for a few moments."
More: Moyes excited by Europe | Moyes clarifies Januzaj call | Gallery: CL training


text:
Enter your Email Address and click 'Continue' Example: email@example.com Submit Cancel Forgot Password Close /GarnetHill/US/Global/Popups/forgot_password Enter your email address:
false pdp {"scheme":"product1_cr"}
false pdp {"scheme":"product2_cr"}
Sequined Skirt 54 54
Took A Chance! I took a chance on this because it was on sale. I took a chance because at my age I probably should not be wearing cute sparkly short skirts. I took a chance and I'm glad I did. Although I am over 50 I still have nice legs and with dark tights, black boots or heals this skirt will look so FuN for the Holidays! I do wish it were a bit narrower but the flare still works. Took a chance and it paid off! October 14, 2014
An amazing sequined skirt! I bought this skirt in both colors, the red and the dark green, planning to wear one on Valentine's Day and one on St. Patrick's Day, but I have worn them both several times already. I have several other sequined skirts from other retailers that were a good bit more expensive than these, and these are my favorites. I did purchase both on sale, which amounted to a tremendous bargain! The lining to these skirts is soft and comfortable--not scratchy at all. The wide elastic waistband is amazing. It is wider than the waistband on all of my other skirts, and I love it because the skirt will stay right where you put it--will not ride up or down! I initially was not sure what I thought of the fact that the sequins are larger and spaced wider apart than on other skirts that I own, but from afar they have every bit as much sparkle but are way more comfortable than others. Also, this skirt is the perfect length for me--not too long, not too short for my 5'1" frame. You will LOVE this skirt, and the shades of red and green are so bright and pretty. February 9, 2014
Fun! Love this skirt. It's surprisingly comfortable and super festive. I have worn it several times this winter and always get compliments. February 5, 2014
nice skirt t is fun, but I ordered it as pictured with the top. Beware that the top is not sequined on the back, so it looks strange with the skirt unless you wear a cardigan over it. The skirt is nice and stretchy. February 5, 2014
Awesome skirt This skirt is perfect for pretty much the whole month of December. I coveted it, and grabbed it when it went on sale. I ordered a black medium, my usual size, and it is a good fit- 5'10", 140 #. I wore it with the matching black tank but also with a bright tank/cardigan combo. Love it and plan to love it for years. February 4, 2014
Just fun! This was fun to wear but more importantly I was happy that is very well made and lined nicely. It did snag a little on my nylons but not much I think you can do about that! February 4, 2014
(5 Questions : 7 Answers)
Product Q&A
Ask your questions. Share your answers.
« Back
Age: 55-64
Gender: Female
3 years ago
Lubbock, TX
Answer:The longest point in the back of regular is 23 inches. I did not read the washing instructions, but the fabric is velvet-like, so I will either dry clean or hand wash in cold water and hang dry to be safe. It is worth it.
Age: 45-54
Gender: Female
2 years, 11 months ago
Manchester, Connecticut
Answer:The length of this skirt varies from 14.5" to 16.25" depending upon the size. The care instructions are to
hand wash in cold water, do not wring or twist, do
not bleach, lay flat to dry, use a cool iron if neces-
3 years ago
2 answers
If I wear a true size 8, what size skirt should I buy? The 6-8 small makes me worry it could be too tight.
Age: 55-64
Gender: Female
1 year, 9 months ago
SLC, Utah
Answer:I find the Garnet Hill sizes generous rather than skimpy. I wear either an 8 or 10 in most brands but order 6-8 (small) in Garnet Hill and have never returned anything because it was too small. Good luck!
Age: Over 65
Gender: Female
1 year, 7 months ago
Annapolis, MD
Answer:Here are the garment measurements for the size small and medium to help you decide:
S(06-08) Relaxed Waist 27.5", Length 15" and Sweep 46"
M(10-12) Relaxed Waist 29.5", Length 15.5" and Sweep 48"
1 year, 9 months ago
2 years ago
San Luis Obispo, CA, USA
Answer:The sequins are sewn all over the skirt, even on the back.
2 years ago
Age: 55-64
Gender: Female
1 year, 10 months ago
Answer:The available garment measurements are shown below:
S(06-08) - 27.5" Waist, 15" Length, 46" Sweep
M(10-12) - 29.5" Waist, 15.5" Length, 48" Sweep
1 year, 10 months ago
Age: 55-64
Gender: Female
11 months ago
Northern California
Answer:The length measurement does include the width of the waistband.
10 months ago
Franconia, NH
1 of 1
1 of 1
Product:25367-Sequined Skirt


text:
Have an iPhone 4s or earlier? Check out Highline 30–pin »
Highline for iPhone 5/5s is a clever security leash and protective case system that provides peace of mind while capturing photos and video in the most precarious situations. Whether you are on a chairlift, whale watching, zip–lining, rock climbing, or entertaining your child, Highline will be there to provide the ultimate protection for your iPhone.
"Just think of it as a bungee cable designed to provide peace of mind." Gizmodo, Kevlar Tether Keeps Your iPhone From Plummeting To Its Death
"You lock your iPhone to the cable, attach the loop to your jacket, and go totally nuts." TechCrunch, Hey, Bromasters, Take Your Kenu Highline On The Slopes When You Shred
"The Highline works. It holds tenaciously onto your iPhone or iPod touch and won't let go until you tell it to." Cult of Mac, The Highline iPhone Leash Is Totally Tough Enough
"Really useful for iPhoneographers! It allows you to take photos in places where you might be afraid that the phone will fall." The Beginner's Lens, Kenu Highline
Have an iPhone 4s or earlier? Check out Highline 30–pin »
Highline's elegant snap–on case is made of tough polycarbonate. Equipped with an enclosed top and screen protective rim, it provides added drop protection, while the UV coated, crystal clear finish allows the beauty of your iPhone to show through.
The proprietary Lightning Lock™ system safely plugs into the iPhone's lightning port while locking to a tiny notch in the case to create a simple, yet secure connection. Just click–in and click–out.
Highline's coil is tough but compact, sliding into your pocket without crowding everything else out. Flexible and responsive, it goes from pocket to fully extended and back in moments. Reinforced with braided Kevlar, it can handle your toughest test.
The abrasion–resistant Kevlar loop is super tough, yet thin enough to wrap around zippers, belt loops, stroller straps, purse handles, d–rings, carabiners, and more.
During your adventures in life, Highline is there to keep your iPhone 5/5s at your side no matter what. It helps save you and your bank account from the heartache of replacing your device.
Highline is an easy solution to a big problem… keeping your phone safe. Minimal in its design, the case is elegant while the leash is tough and compact. Take it with you and keep your life simple!
Using the highest quality materials, Highline's coil has a tough Kevlar core (the stuff in bullet-proof vests) and the polycarbonate case will keep your iPhone safe from disaster.
The Highline has been engineered to work specifically with your iPhone 5/5s for precise fit and functionality. Do you have an older model? Check out Highline 30–pin
Height: 6 in (152 mm)
Width: 1 in (25 mm)
Depth: .5 in (13 mm)
Weight: .2 oz (6 g)
Loop and Coil Core: DuPont Kevlar fiber with Kevlar-braided sheath
Stretchable Coil: Durable, high-quality TPU
iPhone 5/5s Case: Polycarbonate
Not yet, we are keeping the case clear to allow the natural beauty of your iPhone 5/5s to shine through.
No, unfortunately the dimensions of the 5c are different than the iPhone 5 and 5s dimensions. However, it's in our product hopper.
Yes, the Highline comes with a one year warranty.
The case is measured to specifically fit the iPhone 5 and 5s as they have the same dimensions.
Not yet, but please offer your suggestions at email@example.com.
Though we at Kenu love winter sports, we find Highline for iPhone 5/5s useful while traveling, biking, fishing, boating, and everyday life.
You will not be able use your own case, as Highline's leash and case are engineered to work together.
You bet! :)
No. We ship Highline for iPhone 5/5s DDU (Delivered Duty Unpaid) meaning that our international shipping prices don't include any import duties or taxes. It's your responsibility to pay them at time of delivery. You'll be billed by a 3rd party for these charges.


text:
As rave reviews go, they don't get much more ravier than this, about Jungle Theater grad Craig Wright's latest play Grace.
We have a new "jump the shark," folks. Call it "the Partridge Family scene." It happens midway through the wretched Must Love Dogs, when the cast inexplicably breaks into the Partridge Family theme. I saw it Tuesday night. I turned to my wife and said there are no words for how bad this is, how insu ... More >>
TV news should be ashamed of itself�again
Local playwright Jeffrey Hatcher makes his Hollywood debut
What we talk about when we don't talk about love
Sinclair Lewis's small-town satire stumbles onstage
In Praise of Murderous Hookers, Heroic Zoroastrians, and the Ghosts of Garage Sales Storm. Plus: We viciously slag off the Andrews sisters and an embarrassing Wonder Woman costume!
Former Minnesotans Say the Twin Cities Cultural Scene Is Insular. Insecure. Unprofitable. Out of Touch. What Does It Mean to Live in an Artists' Paradise If Everyone Wants to Leave?
The dean of local rock writers, Jim Walsh, goes back to school
What Do You Get When You Combine a Sailor, a Mortician, and a Pregnant Teen?
Pavilion sends a former couple to their high school reunion; The Big Hoover breaches the dam of failed romances
As a playwright, singer, and adman, Craig Wright has played to many audiences. As a divinity student, though, he'll soon perform the mother of all scripts, chapter and verse.