NPAC program areas. NNSA Does Not Consistently Track and Document the Full Extent of Nonproliferation Technology Advancement, Transition, and Deployment

The full extent to which research and technology development projects  managed by NNSA’s DNN R&D and NPAC programs have resulted in  advanced, transitioned, or deployed technologies is unclear because  NNSA does not consistently track and document all of these project  outcomes. However, the DNN R&D program, which is  by far the larger program, does not consistently track and document  projects that result in technologies being transitioned or deployed. NNSA  officials acknowledged that the DNN R&D program does not use the  WebPMIS system, or otherwise collect and maintain information, to track  and document whether its projects result in technologies that have been  transitioned to or deployed by end users. Selected Projects Resulted in Advanced, Transitioned, and Deployed Technologies

By gathering information from various sources about our sample of 91  selected DNN research and technology development projects, we were  able to determine that some projects resulted in technologies being  advanced, transitioned, or deployed, or that they resulted in more than  one of these outcomes. Of those 88 projects, we  found that 33 also resulted in the advanced technology being transitioned  to users outside of the project team for further development or  deployment. Clarity Limitations May Hinder Users’ Ability to Interpret DNN’s Publicly Reported Performance Measures

NNSA reports publicly on the DNN R&D and NPAC programs’  performance using measures published in DOE’s annual budget  requests, in response to requirements in GPRAMA;  however, limitations  with the clarity of the DNN R&D program’s measures may make it difficult  for users, such as Congress, to understand the targets that NNSA has  established for its research and technology development programs, as  well as how NNSA has measured performance against these targets. Better Documentation Could Enhance NNSA’s Assessment of Project Performance

NNSA assesses the performance of the DNN R&D and NPAC programs’  projects by reviewing project documentation and communicating with  project managers, but improvements in NNSA’s final project  documentation could enhance assessment of project performance. To  assess project performance, NNSA officials said that both programs track  progress during the project by communicating with project managers at  the national laboratories and by reviewing documents, such as quarterly  project reports, that provide information on project performance. However, the officials said that the final reports do not  document their assessment of project performance against the baseline  targets established in the initial project plans. They also said that there is  no common template for final project reports. We confirmed this in our  review of several final project reports. NNSA officials provided several reasons why they do not document their  assessment of project performance against baseline targets or use a  common template for final project reports. Documenting assessments that compare final project  performance results against baseline targets for scope of work and  completion date—whether through a common template for final project  reports or by other means—could enhance NNSA’s ability to manage its  programs in accordance with these standards. We continue to believe that it is important  for NNSA to implement our December 2011 recommendation that NNSA  clarify the DNN R&D program’s publicly reported performance measures,  so that Congress and other users of these measures have a sufficient  understanding of DNN programs’ status and progress. In NNSA’s written comments, which are  summarized below and reproduced in appendix V, NNSA neither agreed  nor disagreed with our first recommendation and partially agreed with our  second recommendation; however, NNSA stated that it plans to take  actions in response to both recommendations. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology

This report (1) evaluates the extent to which projects managed by the  National Nuclear Security Administration’s (NNSA) research and  technology development programs have resulted in advanced,  transitioned, or deployed nonproliferation technologies, (2) evaluates how  NNSA measures the performance of its research and technology  development programs and projects, and (3) describes how programs in  NNSA’s Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) decide which  research and technology development projects to pursue. To determine the extent to which NNSA’s research and technology  development programs have resulted in advanced, transitioned, or  deployed nonproliferation technologies, we selected a nongeneralizable  sample from research and technology development projects undertaken  between fiscal years 2012 and 2015 by the two DNN programs  responsible for such projects: the Office of DNN Research and  Development (DNN R&D) and the Office of Nonproliferation  and Arms  Control (NPAC).
Why GAO Did This Study

Nuclear proliferation is a national security threat. DNN's two research and technology development programs develop technical solutions to prevent nuclear proliferation. From fiscal years 2012 through 2015, these programs obligated over $1.1 billion on 511 projects. The DNN R&D program obligated over $1 billion of this amount.
A House report included a provision for GAO to review the programs. This report evaluates, among other objectives, (1) the extent to which projects managed by NNSA's research and technology development programs resulted in advanced, transitioned, or deployed nonproliferation technologies and (2) how NNSA measures the performance of its research and technology development programs and projects.
GAO reviewed documents on a non-generalizable sample of 91 research and technology development projects, selected from all program areas to include projects with the largest amount of funding and to capture a broad range of the programs' technical functions. GAO also reviewed DNN's program objectives and publicly reported performance measures and interviewed NNSA officials and technology users at other agencies.

What GAO Found

The full extent to which research and technology development projects managed by two programs in the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation (DNN) have resulted in advanced (progressed technologies or science supporting them), transitioned (provided to users for further development or deployment), or deployed (used in the field) technologies is unclear because NNSA does not consistently track and document all of these outcomes. Specifically, the DNN Research and Development (DNN R&D) and Nonproliferation and Arms Control (NPAC) programs track and document technology advancements resulting from their projects, such as in project reports. However, NNSA officials acknowledged that DNN R&D—by far the larger program—does not consistently track and document whether its projects result in technologies transitioned to or deployed by end users. In contrast, the NPAC program tracks and documents these project outcomes. By not consistently tracking and documenting technology transition and deployment outcomes, NNSA is unable to demonstrate the full results of its projects. GAO gathered information from various sources on a sample of 91 projects. Of these, 88 projects advanced technologies by, for example, building instrument hardware or developing models for data analysis; the other 3 did not advance technologies but assessed potential applications of existing technologies. Among the 88 projects that advanced technologies, 33 also resulted in technologies being transitioned, including software used to analyze nuclear detonations. Finally, of these 33 projects, 17 also resulted in deployed technologies, including an enrichment monitoring tool used in Iran and space-based nuclear detonation sensors. Reasons that some technologies in the sample did not move beyond the advancement or transition stage included that the technology needed further development or evaluation before being used.
Limitations with the clarity of the DNN R&D program's publicly reported performance measures make them difficult to interpret, potentially hindering users' ability to determine the program's progress; better documentation of project performance against baseline targets may enhance NNSA's performance assessments. The DNN R&D program's performance measures have clarity limitations because they do not, for example, define measurement criteria or provide context justifying how the program determined that it met its performance targets; this may cause external users of the measures, including Congress, to have difficulty interpreting NNSA's assessment of performance. In a December 2011 report, GAO recommended that NNSA clarify its publicly reported measures for DNN's R&D program. GAO continues to believe that NNSA should do so. Regarding project-level performance, NNSA uses project plans to establish baseline targets for projects' scope and completion date, and tracks progress by communicating with project managers and reviewing documents such as quarterly and final project reports. However, NNSA officials said that final project reports do not document their assessment of performance against baseline targets and that there is no common template for final project reports, which GAO confirmed in a review of several final project reports. Documenting such assessments could enhance NNSA's ability to assess project performance against goals, consistent with federal internal control standards.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that NNSA consistently track and document results of DNN R&D projects and document assessments of final project results against baseline performance targets. NNSA neither agreed nor disagreed with the first recommendation and partially agreed with the second, but agreed to take actions in response to both recommendations.