33 Matching Results

Search Results

Advanced search parameters have been applied.

Office of Inspector General audit report on the U.S. Department of Energy`s management of Associated Western Universities grant programs

Description: The Department of Energy (DOE), recognizing the need to maintain a strong science and engineering base at a time when enrollments in these disciplines were declining, implemented several educational programs. Among these were educational programs to provide faculty and students of US colleges and universities with energy-related training and research experience. Associated Western Universities (AWU), a nonprofit organization, administered post-secondary educational programs for DOE through grants and, occasionally, subcontracts. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether: (1) DOE was achieving its goal of enhancing US science and engineering education and (2) AWU was appropriately accumulating and classifying its costs. It was found that DOE was not fully achieving its objective of enhancing science and engineering education for students of US colleges and universities. In addition, it was found that AWU had not complied with cost principles for nonprofit organizations as required under the terms of the grants. Specifically, AWU misclassified a $13,000 overrun of direct program cost as indirect cost, incurred $40,000 of idle facility costs that were unallowable under the terms of the grant, misclassified indirect costs as direct costs, and claimed reimbursement for consultant costs that were inappropriate under the terms of the consulting contract. These discrepancies resulted in $53,000 of questionable costs, as well as costs having been charged to the Office of Energy Research (ER) grant that should have been charged to the Richland and Idaho grants. The authors recommended that the Managers of the Richland and Idaho Operations offices take actions to ensure that the objectives of DOE`s educational programs are met. In addition, they recommended that the Manager, Idaho Operations Office, direct the Contracting Officer to have AWU comply with the appropriate cost principles for nonprofit organizations.
Date: April 1, 1998
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General audit of alternatives to testing at the Tonopah Test Range

Description: Since the 1950s, the Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies have done weapons program testing at the Tonopah Test Range (Tonopah). Beginning the in 1990s, DOE`s testing at Tonopah declined dramatically. This decline was coincident with the signing of various international treaties, the end of the Cold War, and the movement of some types of tests to other ranges. As a result, Tonopah was left with some bomb and work-for-others testing. The objective of this audit was to determine if there were viable, cost effective alternatives to testing at Tonopah. During the early 1990s, DOE`s Albuquerque Operations Office (Albuquerque) and Sandia National Laboratories (Sandia), which operates Tonopah for DOE, explored the alternative of testing elsewhere. Some of the data gathered by Albuquerque and Sandia provided indications that testing at another range would be practical and economical. This audit followed up on the Albuquerque/Sandia studies and also indicated that testing could be done elsewhere, at a potential cost savings of several million dollars annually. Therefore, it was recommended that Albuquerque conduct a comprehensive study of all testing alternatives. Albuquerque agreed to implement this recommendation but raised technical questions regarding issues such as environmental permits, scheduling flexibility, and cost components, which warrant a more detailed examination as part of the recommended study. It was also recommended that, if the study found that it was not feasible or economical to move the testing elsewhere, Albuquerque reduce the cost of Tonopah to the minimum level necessary to support testing requirements. Albuquerque agreed to this recommendation and stated that it and Sandia continued to actively pursue cost reductions at Tonopah.
Date: March 13, 1998
Creator: Friedman, G.H.
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of the radioactive liquid waste treatment facility operations at the Los Alamos National Laboratory

Description: Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos) generates radioactive and liquid wastes that must be treated before being discharged to the environment. Presently, the liquid wastes are treated in the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility (Treatment Facility), which is over 30 years old and in need of repair or replacement. However, there are various ways to satisfy the treatment need. The objective of the audit was to determine whether Los Alamos cost effectively managed its Treatment Facility operations. The audit determined that Los Alamos` treatment costs were significantly higher when compared to similar costs incurred by the private sector. This situation occurred because Los Alamos did not perform a complete analysis of privatization or prepare a {open_quotes}make-or-buy{close_quotes} plan for its treatment operations, although a {open_quotes}make-or-buy{close_quotes} plan requirement was incorporated into the contract in 1996. As a result, Los Alamos may be spending $2.15 million more than necessary each year and could needlessly spend $10.75 million over the next five years to treat its radioactive liquid waste. In addition, Los Alamos has proposed to spend $13 million for a new treatment facility that may not be needed if privatization proves to be a cost effective alternative. We recommended that the Manager, Albuquerque Operations Office (Albuquerque), (1) require Los Alamos to prepare a {open_quotes}make-or-buy{close_quotes} plan for its radioactive liquid waste treatment operations, (2) review the plan for approval, and (3) direct Los Alamos to select the most cost effective method of operations while also considering other factors such as mission support, reliability, and long-term program needs. Albuquerque concurred with the recommendations.
Date: November 19, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General report on audit of the contractor incentive program at the Nevada Operations Office

Description: As a result of recommendations in the 1994 report, Making Contracting Work Better and Cost Less, the Department of Energy (Department) has adopted performance-based contracting for the management and operation of its major facilities. Under this approach, contractor performance is to be evaluated against performance measures which are clearly stated, results-oriented, and established prior to performance. The performance measures, which reflect the Department`s expectations of the contractor, are the basis for rewarding superior contractor performance through the use of incentive fees. The purpose of the audit was to determine whether performance-based contracting, as incorporated in the Bechtel Nevada Corporation (Bechtel) contract for the management of the Department`s Nevada Test Site and associated activities, conformed to these principles. The audit disclosed that the performance measures associated with the Bechtel contract did not conform to requirements set forth in the Contract Reform Team report and the Bechtel contract. The Nevada Operations Office (Nevada) established measurement milestones after the work had actually been completed by Bechtel. Further, many of the performance measures were vague and non-specific and, as a result, Nevada rewarded performance that could not be objectively validated. These problems were attributable to the general difficulties in transitioning to the new contracting concept. As a result, the success of the effort to implement performance-based contracting at Nevada was at risk.
Date: October 20, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of desktop computer acquisitions at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory

Description: Federal and Department of Energy (Department) acquisition regulations, policies and procedures, as well as the terms of the current contract between the Idaho Operations Office (Idaho) and Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company (Lockheed) require them to pay the lowest possible prices for desktop computers needed to support the overall mission at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (Laboratory). The purpose of this audit was to determine Idaho`s and Lockheed`s success in achieving this price goal. Idaho and Lockheed have implemented numerous efficiency standards that are expected to reduce computer service and maintenance costs as well as increase employee productivity by approximately $3.6 million per year. However, the audit showed that Lockheed did not always pay the lowest possible prices for desktop computers because its standard desktop computer configuration was excessive. Additionally, some desktop computers that Lockheed acquired exceeded its established standard and were not fully justified in accordance with established policies and procedures. Further, Lockheed purchased desktop computers from a local vendor rather than a less costly alternative source and did not pursue the possibly more economical option of leasing computers.
Date: August 25, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General report on audit of environmental restoration at the Los Alamos National Laboratory

Description: Los Alamos` Environmental Restoration Program is charged with cost effectively remediating contaminated sites. To monitor progress toward this goal, the University of California, the contractor operating Los Alamos, and the Department negotiated eight performance measures. The objective of this audit was to determine whether the contract performance criteria were reasonable, measurable, and complete, thereby allowing the Department to determine if Los Alamos had expeditiously and cost effectively remediated contaminated sites. The audit determined that Los Alamos did not generate the information needed to assess the cost effectiveness of remediation on a site-by-site basis. This situation occurred because the performance criteria used to evaluate cost effectiveness were not always reasonable, measurable, and complete. As a result, neither Los Alamos nor the Department could evaluate the cost effectiveness or progress of the remediation program or accurately budget for upcoming remediation activities. The audit also determined that Los Alamos` sample validation procedures were too costly because Los Alamos validated more samples than called for by Federal and New Mexico standard practices. While the Office of Inspector General recognizes the importance of prudent sample validation, Los Alamos paid $540,000 more than necessary to validate sample results. These funds could have been used to remediate contaminated sites.
Date: July 1, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General report on audit of the Western Area Power Administration`s contract with Basin Electric Power Cooperative

Description: At the request of the Western Area Power Administration (Western), an audit of 17 areas was conducted with respect to possible overcharges on a power contract between Western and Basin Electric Power Cooperative (Basin), Contract No. DE-MP65-82WP-19001. The contract for Western`s purchase of electric power from Basin was entered into on April 15, 1982, and was in effect from January 1, 1986, through October 31, 1990. During this 58-month period, Basin billed Western approximately $197.6 million. Overall, it was found that Basin overcharged Western approximately $23.8 million. These overcharges occurred because Basin: (1) did not recognize or amortize as gain its overestimate of completion and correction costs for Antelope Valley Station (AVS) Unit 2; (2) did not amortize the gain on the sale/leaseback of AVS Unit 2 as an offset to lease costs; (3) billed Western prematurely for lease and interest costs; (4) overcharged for the cost of coal by including administrative and general expenses and profit, as well as incorrectly calculating discounts, royalty payments, and imputed interest costs; (5) made faulty calculations of amortization rates for deferred costs; (6) used a shorter depreciation period for AVS common facilities than it had used for other power plants; (7) retained tax benefit transfers; and (8) charged Western for interest and depreciation that had been paid by others. In addition to the $23.8 million in overcharges, interest accrued on the overcharges through December 31, 1996 was estimated to be approximately $22.1 million, resulting in a total of $45.9 million due Western.
Date: June 25, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Office of Inspector General report on audit of renovation and new construction projects at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Description: The Oakland Operations Office (Oakland) is responsible for acquiring facilities needed to satisfy mission needs and to do so at the least cost to the Department of Energy (Department). The objective of the audit was to determine if proposed renovation and new construction projects at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (Livermore) met mission needs while minimizing cost to the Government. In pursuing three projects, estimated to cost over $78 million, Livermore had not demonstrated that it had selected the best alternatives for meeting the Department`s needs while minimizing cost. Livermore was able to pursue these projects because Oakland did not ensure that the laboratory had performed cost and benefit analyses of all alternatives. Further, Oakland did not establish benchmarks to assess the reasonableness of the total costs of designing, constructing, and managing these projects. As a result, it was likely that the Department was spending more than necessary on renovation and new construction projects at Livermore. Although the projects met mission needs, it was recommended that the Manager, Oakland: (1) require Livermore to perform analyses of expected costs and benefits for alternatives; (2) evaluate the adequacy of Livermore`s cost and benefit analyses of alternatives; (3) establish benchmarks based on industry and other government agency cost data to assess the reasonableness of Livermore`s total design, construction, and project management costs; and (4) select the alternative that meets established needs at the least cost to the Government. Oakland agreed with the recommendations and will implement them starting with the Fiscal Year 1999 project submission and validation.
Date: June 5, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Report on audit of the use of intra-departmental requisitions

Description: The Department of Energy`s (Department) network of management and operating contractors, as well as other prime contractors, procure over $270 million in goods and services from each other on a yearly basis by using intra-Departmental requisitions. The objective of the audit was to determine whether intra-Departmental requisitions were used appropriately. Specifically, that they were not used to (1) obtain commercially available goods and services; (2) acquire services outside the performing contractor`s mission; (3) procure the services of subcontractors; and (4) augment staffing. The audit disclosed that the Department`s prime contractors did not use intra-Departmental requisitions appropriately for 40 of the 104 requisitions reviewed. As a result, the Department did not always receive the most cost effective goods and services. For example, on two requisitions the Department could have saved almost $850,000 out of $1.6 million if the prime contractors had used normal procurement channels and competed the acquisitions. In other instances, using intra-Departmental requisitions resulted in multiple overhead rates being added to the cost of the goods or services procured. We recommended the Department issue criteria on the use of intra-Departmental requisitions. We also recommended operations offices establish policies and procedures over the use of these requisitions and provide a stronger emphasis on the appropriate use of intra-Departmental requisitions through contractor instruction and yearly reviews. Department management concurred with the finding and recommendations and agreed to initiate action on the recommendations in the report. Management comments are included in Part III of this report.
Date: May 2, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Report on audit of the use of Hanford site railroad system

Description: The DOE in partnership with its contractors, strives to operate, maintain, and use existing physical assets to meet mission needs. Field offices have first line responsibility to ensure stewardship of the assets. Part of stewardship responsibility involves ensuring assets are fully evaluated for use in meeting the DOE`s mission. One of Richland`s oldest, yet well-maintained multi-million dollar physical assets, is the Hanford railroad system. This system, constructed in the 1940s, includes tracks, railcars, and locomotives and provides sitewide transportation. Because of the availability of this asset, the objective of the audit was to determine if Richland ensured that Hanford contractors were fully utilizing the railroad system.
Date: March 20, 1997
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of groundwater monitoring at Hanford

Description: The Department of Energy (DOE), Richland Operations is responsible for ensuring that its contractors` tasks are mission oriented and are completed at the least cost to the DOE. The objective of this audit was to determine whether Richland was effectively managing its groundwater monitoring activities so that unnecessary duplication would not occur. The audit`s objective was accomplished by: reviewing laws and regulations; interviewing DOE and contractor personnel; examining procurement and accounting procedures; reviewing plans, budgets, and actual expenditures; reviewing utilization of the DOE drilling equipment; observing well drilling activities; comparing drilling cost to other DOE sites; analyzing groundwater monitoring activities; and, reviewing and comparing groundwater reports.
Date: November 15, 1996
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of bus service subsidies at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Description: In September 1995, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued the Audit of Subsidized Ancillary Services at the Nevada Test Site which concluded that the Department continued to pay high subsidies for ancillary services, including bus services, that were not used extensively, may no longer be needed, could be more fully supported by its users, or could be operated more efficiently. Consistent with the audit at Nevada, the purpose of this audit was to assess whether bus service subsidies at the Laboratory were still necessary or reasonable. Specifically, the audit determined if the current level of bus services was still needed, if operating costs could be reduced, and if users should bear a greater share of bus operations costs.
Date: November 7, 1996
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of electrical system construction projects at the Nevada Operations Office

Description: The Nevada Test Site became the nation`s continental nuclear weapons test site on January 11, 1951. Over the years, the Nevada Operations Office (Nevada) built an extensive infrastructure to support and conduct nuclear tests at the site and in Las Vegas. Roads, housing, test towers, electrical systems, and water systems are just a few of the construction projects that have been required by the Site`s nuclear testing mission. Nuclear testing continued through 1992. A presidential decision directive issued in October that year stopped testing but required Nevada to conduct and experimental program and maintain a readiness posture to resume nuclear testing within 6 months through fiscal year 1995. The directive further required that, beginning with fiscal year 1996, Nevada maintain a 2-3 year readiness posture. This change in Nevada`s mission coupled with Department downsizing requires that only cost effective projects with defined mission needs be undertaken. Although Nevada has changed and rescoped some construction projects in response to the changing Test Site mission, there are two projects, one underway and one planned, that contain unneeded overlap of capability. Specifically, the audit identified two electrical system projects that provided unnecessary duplicate capability at a cost of about $1.35 million. Management concurred with our finding and agreed to implement the recommendation. Details of management`s comments and our response are included.
Date: November 6, 1996
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of the management of the cooperative agreement with Texas to fund the Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutonium

Description: To address disposition of special nuclear material taken from dismantled nuclear weapons, DOE in Nov. 1994 agreed to provide financial assistance to the State of Texas to establish the Amarillo National Resource Center for Plutonium. The Center sponsored research on storage, disposition, potential utilization, and transportation of Pu, high explosives, and other materials generated from nuclear weapons disassembly. Objective of the audit was to determine if DOE provided adequate management, direction, and control to ensure that the Center`s activities are beneficial to DOE and do not duplicate the work at DOE`s national laboratories. DOE has had limited involvement in the Center. The Center`s projects identified by the Office of Fissile Materials Disposition as supporting Defense Programs activities have not been reviewed. Review revealed that DOE funded about $1.8 million during the first two years of Center`s operation for research which duplicated research conducted by DOE`s national laboratories. This duplication occurred because responsibility for technical review was assigned at a level without authority to fully coordinate review of the Center`s research projects with DOE`s national laboratories. Recommendations are given.
Date: August 23, 1996
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of the Department of Energy`s user facilities

Description: DOE has for years made certain designated research facilities available to universities, industry, and other research organizations. Due to technology transfer efforts and excess capacities, even more facilities, such as defense program facilities, are being made available to outside users. Today, DOE user facilities fall into one of three categories: designated user facilities, other user resources, and Technology Deployment Center/User Facilities. Objective of this audit was to determine whether user facility agreements were priced for full cost recovery, user facility agreement collections were properly deposited, and financial assistance provided to visiting researchers was allowable and reasonable. The audit found that DOE priced Technology Deployment Center/User Facility and designated user facility agreements in accordance with DOE policies. However, other user facility agreements were not always priced to ensure full cost recovery, and collections were not always properly deposited. At one designated user facility, visiting researchers were provided with financial and housing assistance that is questionable as being allowable.
Date: August 19, 1996
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Subcontracting practices at the Nevada Operations Office and its management and operating contractor

Description: The Department of Energy (Department), Nevada Operations office (Nevada) is responsible for following established policy in obtaining necessary support services through its Contract Management Division. The objective of the audit was to determine whether Nevada and its Management and Operating (M&O) contractors were following Federal and Department policies with regard to directed support service subcontracts. The audit showed that program offices in Nevada and Headquarters were directing the Nevada M&O contractor to award subcontracts to specific companies or individuals. The subcontractors reported either directly to a program office or to a national laboratory. Furthermore, the subcontractors` work products were delivered directly to the requesting program office. The M&O contractor had only administrative responsibility for the subcontracts awarded. This occurred because Nevada had not established adequate internal controls over the process of procuring support service. As a result, the M&O contractor was paid a higher award fee for managing the Department`s contracts and may have incurred additional costs in staffing its procurement office. We recommended that the Manager, Nevada Operations Office, discontinue directed support service subcontracts to its M&O contractor and act to strengthen internal controls over subcontracting. Nevada management partially concurred with the recommendations but did not believe the directed procurements cited in the report were inappropriate. Details of management`s comments and our responses are included in Part III.
Date: May 10, 1996
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Report on Audit of Architect and Engineering Costs at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Description: In September 1990 the Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued the Department-wide Audit of Architect and Engineering Design Costs (DOE/IG-0289) which concluded that the Department`s A/E costs averaged more than twice that of private industry. The primary cause of the higher costs was the lack of Departmental A/E cost standards that would provide measurement criteria for controlling costs. Consistent with our prior Department-wide audit, the purpose of this audit was to determine whether A/E services performed at the Laboratory were economical. Specifically, we determined whether the costs for A/E services at the Laboratory were comparable to the cost standards for A/E services in industry and the State; and, whether A/E costs were reasonable.
Date: March 22, 1996
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Report on audit of the Department of Energy`s Transportation Accident Resistant Container Program

Description: The U.S. Department of Energy (Department) has ultimate responsibility for the safety of all nuclear explosives and weapons operations conducted by the Department and its contractors. The Department also has joint responsibility for the safety of nuclear weapons in the custody of the Armed Services. Since the 1970s, the Department has designed, developed, and produced accident resistant containers to promote safety when transporting certain types of nuclear weapons by air. After successfully developing and modifying accident resistant containers for use on Army helicopters, the Department subsequently designed, modified, and produced similar containers for the United States Air Force. Because the Department spent millions of dollars on this project, we conducted the audit to determine if the Department had adequate controls in place to preclude the development and production of projects which did not have customer agreement or meet customer requirements. One goal of the Department`s Strategic Plan is to ensure that customer expectations are met by having them participate in the planning process. Although nuclear safety responsibility was shared with the Department of Defense, the Department designed and produced 87 accident resistant containers for about $29 million when the customer did not want them and expressed no desire to use these containers. This occurred because the Department unilaterally decided to produce containers without ensuring that the containers met customer expectations. There may be circumstances where the Department will do some preliminary design and testing before agreeing with the Department of Defense on requirements. However, the Departments of Energy and Defense should reach agreement on the requirement for products before final design and production, otherwise funds will be spent unnecessarily.
Date: October 11, 1995
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of construction management at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Description: The Secretary of Energy`s streamlining initiatives, coupled with established policy, require the Idaho Operations Office (Idaho) to ensure that its construction projects are necessary and justified. Accordingly, the objectives of this audit were to determine if Idaho was validating project plans; identifying and evaluating construction project alternatives; and reassessing the need for planned construction in accordance with the Laboratory`s decreasing mission needs.
Date: October 1, 1995
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of construction of an environmental, safety, and health analytical laboratory at the Pantex Plant

Description: This document is a report from the Office of the Inspector General, US DOE. The report evaluates the need for the construction of an Environmental, Safety, and Health Laboratory at the Pantex Plant and if this project is the most cost effective manner in which to meet mission needs. It was found that: (1) mission needs were being met with existing facilities, (2) required evaluations of alternatives were not performed, (3) decisions were made based on out-dated justifications, and (4) the expenditure of $8.4M was unnecessary. As a result, it was recommended that funded be suspended until the need is clearly established.
Date: October 1, 1995
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of fuel processing restoration property

Description: In April, 1992, due to a diminished need for reprocessed uranium, the Secretary of Energy terminated the Fuel Processing Restoration (FPR) project. The termination left management and operating (M&O) contractors at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (Laboratory) with over $54 million in tools, equipment and material to be retained, utilized or disposed of. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether FPR property was adequately accounted for and whether the property was properly redistributed or excessed when the FPR project was terminated.
Date: October 1, 1995
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of subsidized ancillary services at the Nevada Test site

Description: The Department and its contractors have participated in at least six reviews since 1991 encompassing aspects of subsidies at the test site. Several of these reviews resulted in reports recommending reductions to the housing, food, and bus services. A strategic planning report completed in November 1994, for example, recommended closing certain food service facilities, increasing housing rates to fair market value, and studying a bus depot system. Other reports echoed the same themes. The Department should be credited for recognizing that actions should be taken to reduce subsidy costs. Moreover, the Acting Manager, Nevada Operations office, has been proactive in reducing the busing subsidy by decreasing the number of buses and bus routes. The Acting Manager has also been fully supportive of the effort to further reduce subsidies. We appreciate these efforts.
Date: September 8, 1995
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Consultant subcontracting at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory

Description: The Department of Energy (Department), Idaho Operations Office (ID) is responsible for ensuring that its management and operating (M&O) contractors subcontract consultant services in a manner most advantageous to the Department. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether consultant subcontracts were competitively and objectively awarded and whether these subcontracts supported the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory`s (INEL) mission. The audit showed that M&O contractors generally did not award consultant subcontracts competitively and objectively. Also, many of the subcontracts were awarded to former INEL employees, increasing the potential for conflicts of interest. These problems occurred because M&O contractors` internal controls did not ensure that sole source procurements were adequately justified and that potential conflicts of interest were avoided. By not competing consultant subcontracts the Department may not have obtained the most economical consultant services. Further, the fundamental fairness upon which such subcontracts were awarded to former employees was questionable. Additionally, one INEL M&O contractor was subcontracting consultant support services directly for Department Headquarters. This occurred because Headquarters elements and the M&O contractor did not follow Department guidance prohibiting subcontractual support from an M&O contractor directly to Headquarters. As a result, the M&O contractor acted as a procurement agent for Headquarters enabling Headquarters to avoid the more stringent requirements of the Department`s procurement process.
Date: June 20, 1995
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department

Audit of Administration of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements at DOE National Laboratories

Description: DOE established policies to ensure that Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAS) enhance US competitiveness in the world economy, provide a reasonable return on resources invested, and enable successful commercialization of technologies developed. DOE`s Office of Technology Partnerships issued a General Guidance Memorandum to DOE operations offices establishing policy goals for technology transfer programs, including CRADAS. Our audit disclosed that efforts to manage CRADAs at three national laboratories did not fully achieve DOE`s policy goals outlined in the General Guidance Memorandum. Specifically, the audit showed that: (1) joint work statements did not always contain clearly defined information that allowed DOE to facilitate technology transfer or to evaluate CRADAs potential benefits; (2) CRADA statements of work did not always contain adequate documentation or address potential benefits; (3) the national laboratories reviewed did not have effective mechanisms for continuous self-appraisal or measures of overall program success; and (4) CRADA provisions did not exist to ensure an accurate evaluation of partner contributions.
Date: May 19, 1995
Partner: UNT Libraries Government Documents Department