	Protective Forces Are Not Uniformly Managed, Organized, Staffed, Trained, or Compensated

Contractor protective forces—including 2,339 unionized officers and their  376 nonunionized supervisors—are not uniformly managed, organized,  staffed, trained, or compensated across the six DOE sites we reviewed. First, protective  forces at all six of the sites we reviewed operate under separate contracts  and collective bargaining agreements. Tactical Response Force Implementation Has Raised Concerns about the Longevity of Protective Forces Careers

Since its inception in 2005, TRF has raised concerns in DOE security  organizations, among protective force contractors, and in protective force  unions about the ability of protective forces—especially older individuals  serving in protective forces—to continue meeting DOE’s weapons,  physical fitness, and medical qualifications. Adding to these concerns are DOE’s broader efforts to  manage its long-term postretirement and pension liabilities for its  contractors, which could have a negative impact on retirement eligibility  and benefits for protective forces. Concerns over TRF implementation and DOE’s efforts to limit long-term  pension and postretirement liabilities contributed to a 44-day protective  force strike at the Pantex Plant in 2007. However, according to  protective force union officials, failure to resolve issues surrounding TRF  implementation and retirement benefits could lead to strikes at three sites  with large numbers of protective forces—Pantex, the Savannah River Site,  and Y-12—when their collective bargaining agreements expire in 2012. Either Improving the Existing Contractor Forces System or Creating a Federal Force Could Result in More Uniform Management of Protective Forces

To manage its protective forces more effectively and uniformly, over the  past decades DOE has considered two principal options—improving  elements of the existing contractor system or creating a federal protective  force. Either option could result in effective and  more uniform security if well-managed. Greater standardization of protective forces across sites to more  consistently support high performance and ready transfer of personnel  between sites. Better DOE management and oversight to ensure effective security. Federalizing Protective Forces Could Create Difficulties Either under Current Laws or with Special Provisions for Enhanced Retirement Benefits

If protective forces were to be federalized under existing law, the current  forces probably would not be eligible for early and enhanced retirement  benefits and might face a loss of pay or even their jobs. DOE Seeks to Address Protective Force Issues by Reforming Contractor Forces, but Progress Has Been Limited to Date

In a joint January 2009 memorandum, senior officials from NNSA and DOE  rejected the federalization of protective forces as an option and supported  the continued use of contracted protective forces—but with  improvements. However, these officials recognized that  the current contractor system could be improved by addressing some of  the issues that federalization might have resolved. For the personnel system initiative to enhance career longevity and  retirement options, in June 2009, the DOE-chartered study group made 29  recommendations that were generally designed to enable members to  reach a normal retirement age within the protective force, take another  job within DOE, or transition to a non-DOE career. Other recommendations focus on providing training and planning  assistance for retirement and job transitions. These concerns have elevated the importance of finding the  most effective approach to maintaining protective force readiness,  including an approach that better aligns personnel systems and protective  force requirements. NNSA’s standardization initiatives and  recommendations made by a DOE study group offer a step forward.
Why GAO Did This Study

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks raised concerns about the security of Department of Energy (DOE) sites with weapons-grade nuclear material, known as Category I special nuclear material (SNM). To better protect these sites against attacks, DOE has sought to transform its protective forces protecting SNM into a Tactical Response Force (TRF) with training and capabilities similar to the U.S. military. This testimony is based on prior work and has been updated with additional information provided by protective forces' union officials. In a prior GAO report, Nuclear Security: DOE Needs to Address Protective Forces' Personnel System Issues (GAO-10-275), GAO (1) analyzed information on the management, organization, staffing, training, and compensation of protective forces at DOE sites with Category I SNM; (2) examined the implementation of TRF; and (3) assessed DOE's two options to more uniformly manage protective forces; and (4) reported on DOE's progress in addressing protective force issues. DOE generally agreed with the recommendations in GAO's prior report that called for the agency to fully assess and implement, where feasible, measures identified by DOE's 2009 protective forces study group to enhance protective forces' career longevity and retirement options.

What GAO Found

Over 2,300 contractor protective forces provide armed security for DOE and the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) at six sites that have long-term missions to store and process Category I SNM. DOE protective forces at each of these sites are covered under separate contracts and collective bargaining agreements between contractors and protective force unions. As a result, the management, organization, staffing, training and compensation--in terms of pay and benefits--of protective forces vary. Protective force contractors, unions, and DOE security officials are concerned that the implementation of TRF's more rigorous requirements and the current protective forces' personnel systems threaten the ability of protective forces--especially older members--to continue their careers until retirement age. These concerns, heightened by broader DOE efforts to manage postretirement and pension liabilities for its contractors that might have a negative impact on retirement eligibility and benefits for protective forces, contributed to a 44-day protective force strike at an important NNSA site in 2007. According to protective force union officials, the issues surrounding TRF implementation and retirement benefits are still unresolved and could lead to strikes at three sites with large numbers of protective forces when their collective bargaining agreements expire in 2012. Efforts to more uniformly manage protective forces have focused on either reforming the current contracting approach or creating a federal protective force (federalization). Either approach might provide for managing protective forces more uniformly and could result in effective security if well-managed. However, if protective forces were to be federalized under existing law, the current forces probably would not be eligible for enhanced retirement benefits and might face a loss of pay or even their jobs. Although DOE rejected federalization as an option in 2009, it recognized that the current contracting approach could be improved by greater standardization and by addressing personnel system issues. As a result, NNSA began a standardization initiative to centralize procurement of equipment, uniforms, and weapons to achieve cost savings. Under a separate initiative, a DOE study group developed a number of recommendations to enhance protective forces' career longevity and retirement options, but DOE has made limited progress to date in implementing these recommendations.