	Background

NNSA, a separately organized agency within DOE, is responsible for the  management and security of the nation’s nuclear weapons,  nonproliferation, and naval reactor programs. Without first clarifying such key management issues,  NNSA cannot, among other things, ensure the improved discipline and  accountability it seeks in managing its programs. NNSA’s Reorganization Will Not Ensure Sufficient Staff with the Right Skills in the Right Places to Meet the Agency’s Mission and Program Goals

NNSA’s reorganization is not likely to ensure that it has sufficient staff  with the right skills in the right places because NNSA chose to downsize  its federal workforce without first determining what critical skills and  capabilities it needed to meet its mission and program goals. Consequently, NNSA will not know the composition of its workforce until  it completes the 17 percent workforce reduction on September 30, 2004— the deadline specified in the reorganization plan—and then determines the  knowledge, skills, and capabilities of its remaining employees. Without a  functional long-term workforce plan, NNSA runs the risk of facing further,  more serious staff shortages or skill imbalances, thereby affecting its  ability to adequately oversee its contractors. NNSA’s Proposed Transition to Less Direct Federal Oversight Could Be Compromised by Outstanding Reorganization Issues

NNSA’s implementation of its proposed risk-based approach to rely more  on contractors’ assurances and self-assessments and less on NNSA’s direct  oversight may be premature because NNSA’s reorganization has not yet  established a program management structure or long-term workforce plan  for ensuring that it has sufficient staff with the right skills in the right  places. Under this new approach, contractors  will develop comprehensive contractor assurance systems, or systems of  management controls, and NNSA will primarily rely upon these systems  and controls to ensure that contractors properly execute their missions  and activities. Recommendations for Executive Action

In order to increase the likelihood that NNSA’s reorganization will achieve  NNSA’s goal of increased management discipline and accountability in  program management and contractor oversight, we are making three  recommendations to the NNSA Administrator and the Secretary of Energy:    establish a formal program management structure, policy, and  implementation guidance for directing the work of its contractors,  especially concerning how program managers will interact with  contracting officers at site offices to help direct and oversee contractor  activity;   complete and implement data-driven workforce planning for the longer  term that (1) determines the critical skills and competencies that will be  needed to achieve current and future programmatic results, including  contractor oversight; (2) develops strategies tailored to address gaps in  number, skills and competencies, and deployment of the workforce; and  (3) monitors and evaluates the agency’s progress toward its human capital  goals and the contribution that human capital results have made toward  achieving programmatic results, and   postpone any decrease in the level of NNSA’s direct federal oversight of  contractors until NNSA has a program management structure in place and  has completed its long-term workforce plan.
Why GAO Did This Study

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a separately organized agency within the Department of Energy (DOE), is responsible for the management and security of the nation's nuclear weapons, nonproliferation, and naval reactor programs. NNSA oversees contractors that operate its facilities to ensure that activities are effective and in line with departmental policy. In December 2002, NNSA began implementing a major reorganization aimed at solving important long-standing organizational issues. GAO reviewed NNSA's overall reorganization efforts to assess (1) the extent to which it is addressing in practice the past problems concerning the unclear delineation of authority and responsibility, (2) workforce planning, and (3) its impact on federal oversight of contractor activities.

What GAO Found

NNSA's reorganization has addressed some past problems by better delineating lines of authority and improving communication; however, NNSA has not formalized a program management structure that identifies program managers or details their responsibilities and qualifications as they relate to the direction and oversight of contractor activity under the new organization. Without first resolving such key management issues, NNSA cannot, among other things, ensure the improved discipline and accountability it seeks in managing its programs. NNSA's reorganization is not likely to ensure that the agency has sufficient staff with the right skills in the right places because NNSA downsized its federal workforce without first determining the critical skills and capabilities needed to meet its mission and program goals. Consequently, NNSA will not know the composition of its workforce until it completes the 17 percent workforce reduction on September 30, 2004--the deadline specified in the reorganization plan--and then determines the knowledge, skills, and capabilities of its remaining employees. Without a functional long-term workforce plan, NNSA runs the risk of facing further, more serious staff shortages or skill imbalances, thereby diminishing its ability to adequately oversee its contractors. NNSA's implementation of a proposed risk-based approach to rely more on contractors' assurances and self-assessments and less on NNSA's direct oversight may be premature because it has not yet established a program management structure or long-term workforce plan for ensuring sufficient staff with the right skills in the right places. Under this proposal, contractors will develop comprehensive assurance systems, or systems of management controls, and NNSA will primarily rely upon these contractor systems and controls to ensure that contractors properly execute their work. Although the overall concept of a risk-based approach to federal oversight has merit, NNSA's proposed transition to conduct less direct federal oversight could be compromised by outstanding reorganization issues.