Increasing security at DOE sites since the terrorist attacks of September  11, 2001, has been costly and challenging. On the basis of this review, DOE has sought to transform DOE’s protective  forces who safeguard special nuclear material into an “elite force”—a  TRF—with training and capabilities similar to military units. These  differences occur because protective forces operate under separate  contracts and collective bargaining agreements at each site and because of  DOE’s long-standing contracting approach of defining desired outcomes  instead of detailed, prescriptive guidance on how to achieve those  outcomes. Tactical Response Force Implementation Varies and Has Raised Concerns about the Longevity of Protective Forces Careers

Sites are at different stages in the implementation of TRF requirements. However, TRF implementation, coupled with broader DOE efforts to limit  postretirement and pension liabilities, has raised concerns with DOE  security officials, protective force contractors, and protective force unions  about the longevity of protective forces’ careers and the adequacy of their  personnel systems. TRF Implementation Varies

DOE has identified the following important TRF requirements for  protective forces:  Improved tactical skills, so that protective forces “move, shoot, and  communicate” as a unit. Also, according to NNSA’s fiscal year  2010 budget submission, NNSA does not expect its sites to complete TRF  activities until the end of fiscal year 2011. TRF Implementation Has Raised Concerns

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. Under the 2003 DBT, most DOE sites are required to maintain denial  protection strategies for Category I SNM. In  contrast, the protective forces at six sites have decentralized management  and are overseen by one of three DOE organizations. Either of the Two Principal Options DOE Has Considered Could Result in More Uniform Management of Protective Forces

To manage its protective forces more effectively and uniformly, 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. They concluded  that, among other things, the transition to a federal force would be costly  and would be likely to provide little, if any, increase in security  effectiveness. However, these officials recognized that the current  contractor system could be improved by addressing some of the issues  that federalization might have resolved. Other recommendations focus  on providing training and planning assistance for retirement and job  transitions. I.) Appendix I: Recommendations from the Protective Force Career Options Initiative Study Group

In March 2009, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Chief Health, Safety and  Security (HSS) Officer commissioned a study to examine “realistic and  reasonable options for improving the career opportunities and retirement  prospects of protective force (PF) members while maintaining, within  current and anticipated budgetary constraints, a robust and effective  security posture.” Under the leadership of HSS and with input from  protective force contractors, a study group was formed consisting of  senior leaders of the National Council of Security Police and senior  technical staff from the National Nuclear Security Administration, the  Office of Environmental Management, the Office of Nuclear Energy, and  the Office of Fossil Energy. 1. 2. 3.
Why GAO Did This Study

The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks raised concerns about the security of Department of Energy's (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. DOE also has considered whether the current system of separate contracts for protective forces at each site provides sufficiently uniform, high-quality performance across its sites. Section 3124 of PL 110-181, the fiscal year 2008 National Defense Authorization Act, directed GAO to review protective forces at DOE sites that possess Category I SNM. Among other things, GAO (1) analyzed information on the management and compensation of protective forces, (2) examined the implementation of TRF, and (3) assessed DOE's two options to more uniformly manage DOE protective forces.

What GAO Found

Over 2000 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 and compensation--in terms of pay and benefits--of protective forces vary. Sites vary in implementing important TRF requirements such as increasing the tactical skills of protective forces so that they can better "move, shoot, and communicate" as a unit. While one site has focused on implementing TRF requirements since 2004, other sites do not plan to complete TRF implementation until the end of fiscal year 2011. In addition, broader DOE efforts to manage postretirement and pension liabilities for its contractors have raised concerns about a negative impact on retirement eligibility and benefits for protective forces. Specifically, 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. 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. Although DOE rejected federalization as an option in 2009 because it believed that the transition would be costly and would yield little, if any, increase in security effectiveness, the department 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.