Detailed Information on the
National Nuclear Security Administration: Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign (ICF) Campaign Assessment

Continue frequent monitoring by independent evaluators, including those retained by the Department of Defense.

Continue to refine the performance measures that clearly describe the goals of the program.

Continue to improve the responsiveness of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure by coordinating program activity with the Complex 2030 Strategy by developing and implementing transition planning.

Measure: Annual average hours per experiment required by operational crew to prepare the Z facility for an experiment.

Explanation:

Measure: Cumulative percentage of progress towards demonstrating ignition (simulating fusion conditions in a nuclear explosion) at the National Ignition Facility (NIF) to increase confidence in modeling nuclear weapons performance.

Explanation:This measure supports NNSA goals and strategies expressed in the NNSA Strategic Plan. Specifically, NNSA Goal 1 and NNSA Strategy 1-2. Annual ICF measures # 5, 7, 8, 9, & 10 (below) support this measure and its associated targets.

Measure: Cumulative percentage of construction completed on the 192-laser beam NIF.

Explanation:This measure supports NNSA goals and strategies expressed in the NNSA Strategic Plan. Specifically, NNSA Goal 1 and NNSA Strategy 1-2. Annual ICF measures # 7, 8, & 10 (below) support this measure and its associated targets.

Measure: Cumulative percentage of equipment fabricated to support ignition experiments at the National Ignition Facility.

Explanation:This measure supports NNSA goals and strategies expressed in the NNSA Strategic Plan. Specifically, NNSA Goal 4 and NNSA Strategy 4-1.

Measure: Annual number of days available to conduct stockpile stewardship experiments, totaled for all ICF facilities.

Explanation:This measure tracks efficiency and effectiveness of ICF facilities in meeting support commitments coordinated with SSP Science and Engineering Campaigns and ICF Campaign objectives. It supports long-term measures #1, 2, & 3 (above) and associated long-term targets 1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, & 3.1.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign (ICF Campaign) is to support current & future National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP) objectives by developing laboratory capabilities to create and measure extreme conditions of temperature, pressure, and radiation approaching those in a nuclear explosion and by conducting weapons-related research in these environments. This capability is required to support assessments and certification of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile.

Evidence: The NNSA Strategic Plan, 2002; NNSA FY 2004-08 Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), February 2003; Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SSM PEIS); ICF Program Plan/Strategic Plan; annual ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; 2001 and 2003 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel"); High Energy Density Physics Study; National Academy of Sciences and JASON reviews of the ICF Program and NIF Project; Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Reviews; Pulsed Power Review Committees ("Garwin" & "Trivelpiece" Reviews); ICF Campaign/Program external review history; and National Ignition Facility Key Decision Zero document.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The ICF Campaign addresses the NNSA need to examine conditions of extreme temperature and pressure present in a nuclear weapon and to provide experimental data to develop and support computational models related to the performance of these weapons. Achievement of technical goals in this field, known as "high energy density physics," is recognized as essential to success of the SSP mission of ensuring the safety, security and reliability of weapons in the stockpile. As such, the ICF Campaign is addressing a specific requirement for the Department of Energy (DOE), which is to enhance national security through the military application of nuclear technology. The FY 1994 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Energy to "establish a stewardship program to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical competencies of the U.S. in nuclear weapons."

Evidence: The FY 1994 National Defense Authorization Act; NNSA Strategic Plan; NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; SSM PEIS; ICF Program Plan/Strategic Plan; annual ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; 2001 and 2003 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel"); High Energy Density Physics Study; National Academy of Sciences and JASON reviews of the ICF Program and NIF Project; Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Reviews; Pulsed Power Review Committees ("Garwin" & "Trivelpiece" Reviews); ICF Campaign/Program external review history; and National Ignition Facility Key Decision Zero document.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Nuclear weapons are the sole province of the Federal Government, and NNSA is the federal agency responsible for the safety, security and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile. The ICF Campaign capabilities are unique and address the specific needs of the SSP. No equivalent laboratory experimental capabilities (facilities and diagnostics) for conducting research in nuclear weapons-relevant temperature/ pressure regimes are available or being planned elsewhere in the U.S. According to the 2003 National Research Council report (Frontiers in High Energy Density Physics), "Existing and future NNSA High Energy Density Facilities... are uniquely capable of probing the behavior of macroscopic collections of matter under extreme conditions." The National Ignition Facility (NIF) will be the only laboratory facility capable of accessing conditions for nuclear burn applicable for the SSP, and the Z pulsed-power facility is the only laboratory facility with sufficiently high energy x-rays for certain radiation tests of weapons components.

Evidence: The NNSA Strategic Plan; NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SSM PEIS); ICF Program Plan/Strategic Plan; annual ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; 2001 and 2003 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel"); High Energy Density Physics Study; National Academy of Sciences and JASON reviews of the ICF Program and NIF Project; Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Reviews; Pulsed Power Review Committees ("Garwin" & "Trivelpiece" Reviews); ICF Campaign/Program external review history; National Ignition Facility Key Decision Zero document; and Frontiers in High Energy Density Physics (National Research Council, 2003).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: NNSA has greatly improved overall management of the program since it identified problems in the structure and management of the NIF Project in FY 2000. Since that time, NNSA has created the NIF Project Office and has applied proven project management methods. However, some recommendations stemming from the previous difficulties remain unfulfilled and some major technical challenges to achieving the project's objectives remain.

Evidence: The NNSA Strategic Plan; ICF Program Plan/Strategic Plan; annual ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; list of ICF Campaign Reviews; ICF periodic milestone status reports; ICF site monthly updates; 2001 and 2003 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel"); High Energy Density Physics Study; National Academy of Sciences and JASON reviews of the ICF Program and NIF Project; Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Reviews; Pulsed Power Review Committees ("Garwin" & "Trivelpiece" Reviews); ICF Campaign/Program external review history; and National Weapons Laboratories Annual Contractor Performance Evaluations.

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The composition of the ICF Campaign is uniquely structured to meet the needs of the national nuclear weapons program. The SSP and ICF Campaign resources are targeted, in accordance with the NNSA Strategic Plan, toward ensuring the long term vitality of the scientific and engineering base at the weapons laboratories in order to assess and certify the nuclear stockpile. The ICF Campaign provides nuclear weapons-relevant facilities and research, including fusion ignition capabilities, at the weapons laboratories and leading U.S. scientific laboratories.

Evidence: The NNSA Strategic Plan; NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; SSM PEIS; ICF Program Plan/Strategic Plan; annual ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; 2001 and 2003 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel"); High Energy Density Physics Study; National Academy of Sciences and JASON reviews of the ICF Program and NIF Project; Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Reviews; Pulsed Power Review Committees ("Garwin" & "Trivelpiece" Reviews); ICF Campaign/Program external review history; and National Ignition Facility Key Decision Zero document.

Does the program effectively articulate potential public benefits?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

If an industry-related problem, can the program explain how the market fails to motivate private investment?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: NNSA has made significant progress in developing tangible, concrete measures for a research and development program that is inherently difficult to measure. While, perhaps, not as clear and concise as measures for other programs, NNSA's intent is to continue to refine the ICF measures to link outputs and outcomes.

Evidence: The NNSA Strategic Plan; NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (SSM PEIS); Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; FY 2003 and Draft FY 2004-05 ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; High Energy Density Physics Study; National Ignition Facility Key Decision One document; National Academy of Sciences and JASON reviews of the ICF Program and NIF Project; Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee Reviews; ICF Campaign/Program external review history; and NIF Construction Project Data Sheet, milestone list, and Project Execution Plan.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The performance targets for the ICF Campaign long-term measures are ambitious and technically challenging. They also have a defined target date. Independent external reviews have validated the technical value and ambitious nature of the goals.

Evidence: The NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; NNSA FY 2004 Congressional Budget Request; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; FY 2003 and Draft FY 2004-05 ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; NIF Construction Project Data Sheet, milestone list, and Project Execution Plan; National Academy of Sciences and JASON reviews of the ICF Program; and ICF Level 1 & 2 milestone list.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: The ICF Campaign has a limited number of specific annual performance measures designed to demonstrate progress toward achieving the Campaign's long-term goals. Annual performance measures exist in the form of FYNSP Performance Indicators that are consistent with ICF Campaign and NIF Project Milestones (Level 1 & 2 milestones) and with ICF Campaign Implementation Plans. These annual performance measures are listed, for FY 2002-FY 2008, in the separate Performance Measures Tab.

Evidence: NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; FY 2004 Congressional Budget Request; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; ICF Annual Campaign Implementation Plans; NIF Construction Project Execution Plan, milestone list, and Project Data Sheet; ICF Level 1 & 2 milestone list; ICF periodic milestone status reports; ICF site monthly updates; and annual budgets.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: The ICF Campaign has ambitious targets and baselines for its annual measures. Annual measures provide a quantitative means of measuring progress in major technical efforts critical to achieving long-term goals and outcome targets. Technical scope, cost and schedule baselines have been established for NIF construction-related activities and adherence to these baselines is monitored and formally reported per established requirements. A system of annual performance indicators and targets was introduced with the FY2004 NNSA FYNSP. Annual ICF performance targets are established to meet expected SSP technical baselines.Progress on technical milestones is monitored closely by NNSA and senior-level laboratory management. This progress is reported in NNSA FYNSP and Government Performance Results Act documentation.

Evidence: The NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; NIF Construction Project Execution Plan, milestone list, and Project Data Sheet; ICF Level 1 & 2 milestone list; ICF periodic milestone status reports; ICF site monthly updates; and annual budgets.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The Nuclear Weapons complex commits to program goals at several levels. Top-level goals are codified via NNSA Level 1 milestones. An ICF Program Executive Group ("HEDP Executives"), consisting of representatives from all laboratories involved in the ICF Campaign and related work for SSP Science Campaigns, oversees the formulation of long-term program goals and associated milestones. This same group oversees the management and execution of the annual work-scope for the ICF Campaign, which is documented in ICF Campaign Implementation Plans and site-owned Project Execution Plans. Actual progress in achieving results against these plans is reported by ICF sites to the NNSA Campaign Manager periodically throughout the year and is also tracked via NNSA reviews as part of the NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation/Execution (PPBE) process, which is further described in the responses to questions 2.7 and 3.1.

Evidence: The NNSA Strategic Plan; NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; NIF Construction Project Execution Plan; and ICF Level 1 & 2 milestone list.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: External committees, to include the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board, the Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee, National Academy of Sciences, JASON, and, more recently, the High Energy Density Physics Study, have validated the program's purpose, direction, and long-term strategy. External reviews of the NIF Construction Project are conducted as needed. Recent NIF reviews include the General Accounting Office (GAO) in June 2001 and the DOE Inspector General (IG) in April 2003. Other topic-specific reviews are conducted as needed. OMB recommends an additional independent evaluation (from the DoD/national security standpoint) that addresses the relevance of the program to the overall stockpile stewardship effort.

Evidence: National Academy of Sciences and JASON reviews of the ICF Program and NIF Project; High Energy Density Physics Study; Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee reviews of the ICF Program; DOE Stockpile Stewardship Program, 30-Day Review, Nov. 1999; ICF Campaign/Program external review history; JASON High Energy Laser Study; ZR Mission Need Review; OMEGA EP Mission Need Review; Garwin Review of Pulsed Power Sciences; Trivelpiece Review of Pulsed Power Sciences; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory NIF Program Advisory Committee Reviews; Los Alamos National Laboratory Physics Division Review Committee Reports; NNSA Reviews of the Naval Research Laboratory ICF Program; Inspector General Report on NIF; National Weapons Laboratory Performance Assessments; JASON High Power Laser Study; National Ignition Facility Key Decision Zero document; 2001 & 2003 Reports to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel"); GAO-01-677R, Follow-up Review of DOE's National Ignition Facility, June 1, 2001; and DOE IG Audit Report, DOE/IG-0598, Status of the National Ignition Facility Project, April 2003.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The NNSA budget requests are explicitly tied to anticipated annual and long-term performance goals via the comprehensive PPBE process. Long-term performance goals established/validated during the Planning Phase are linked in a performance cascade to annual targets and detailed technical milestones. During the Programming Phase, budget and resource trade-offs and decisions are evaluated based on impact to annual and long-term performance measures. These NNSA performance-planning-budgeting decisions are documented in the Program Decision Memorandum (PDM) and used to develop the budget requests during the Budgeting Phase. Program and financial performance for each measure is corporately monitored and assessed during the Execution and Evaluation Phase. The resource needs for NNSA programs are presented in a complete and transparent manner. The budget requests for NNSA programs are "fully loaded" - that is, the direct and indirect costs of program execution by program performers are reflected in the budget. Only about 4% of NNSA's personnel are Federal employees who provide direction, oversight, and administration of the technical efforts. These resources are also specifically and separately identified in NNSA budget requests, as required by the Congress.

Evidence: The NNSA PPBE Guidance Documents located on the NNSA web-site; FY 2004 NNSA Congressional Budget Request; NNSA FY 2004 & FY 2005 PDMs; and NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: Comprehensive improvement of strategic planning is occurring within NNSA and also within the ICF Campaign. The recently completed NNSA Strategic Plan defines the overall goals, strategies, and strategic indicators for the SSP. Strategic guidance issued by NNSA as part of the PPBE process defines objectives and provides guidance for budget formulation. The ICF Campaign continually reexamines its long term goals, most recently via the High Energy Density Physics Study and ICF Campaign specific strategic planning exercises documented in the ICF Program Plan. The NIF Construction Project has improved its prior planning deficiencies by creating the NNSA Office of the NIF Project (now NA-10.1) and by establishing, validating, and certifying a new Project baseline to Congress in September 2000. This new baseline established key milestones to monitor and track the various phases of the Project, implemented an earned value management reporting system, and established a project management review process. All of these steps, along with enhancing the significance of the NIF in the University of California contract performance measures, have increased the direct involvement of senior laboratory management in oversight of the Project.

Evidence: The NNSA Strategic Plan; NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; SSM PEIS; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; High Energy Density Physics Study; NNSA Defense Programs FY2005 PPBES Strategic Guidance; and 2001 & 2003 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel").

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: The High Energy Density Physics Study, which included participation by stockpile stewardship stakeholders from outside NNSA and the laboratories, was conducted in 2001. This study affirmed the need for the ICF Campaign and validated the technical goals for the Campaign. As part of this study, alternatives to constructing the full 192-beam NIF were examined and reviewed, including half- and quarter-sized NIF. The study concluded that the full NIF Project, including the ignition goal, was the best option for stockpile stewardship.

Evidence: High Energy Density Physics Study; NNSA Strategic Plan; SSM PEIS; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; and NNSA Defense Programs FY2005 PPBES Strategic Guidance.

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program to other efforts that have similar goals?

Explanation: There are no U.S. efforts outside of the ICF Campaign that have the same or similar goals or capabilities. The nature and scope of the SSP and ICF Campaign are uniquely defined by the needs for appropriate stewardship of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and for maintaining a U.S. technology base adequate to provide this support. Relevance and validity of efforts are reviewed and evaluated on a regular basis with the stakeholder community.

Evidence:  

Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?

Explanation: It does not appear that there has been a concerted effort to evaluate and prioritize this program relative to other SSP programs and the benefit they provide to overall national security.

Evidence: The NNSA Strategic Plan; NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; NNSA FY 2004 Congressional Budget Request; SSM PEIS; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; High Energy Density Physics Study; and NNSA Defense Programs FY2005 PPBE Strategic Guidance.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The ICF Campaign has conducted periodic program reviews; these are now a requirement of the NNSA PPBE evaluation process. The NIF Construction Project reports progress and adherence to baselines on a monthly and quarterly basis. The National Weapons Laboratory contracts include requirements and criteria for annual assessment of performance. Semi-annual reviews of ICF Campaign progress are held. The status of Level 1 and 2 milestone accomplishment is updated several times per year. The Campaign's major university contractor provides quarterly and annual technical reports. The Campaign's industrial contractor is reviewed semi-annually. Other specific activities oriented towards construction, such as ZR and OMEGA EP, provide quarterly reporting per standard DOE procedure (DOE Order 413.3). Sites also produce annual reports of progress. Data from all ICF Campaign participants is collected and incorporated in campaign planning and budget formulation.

Evidence: NIF Project monthly reports; ICF Campaign semi-annual reviews; ICF periodic milestone status reports; National Laboratory contract performance reports; University of Rochester quarterly and annual reports; General Atomics, Inc. semi-annual review reports; NIF Diagnostics Program Quarterly review; ZR Project Quarterly review; site monthly updates; and DOE Order 413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets, October 13, 2000.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Responsibility and accountability for technical quality of stewardship work performed are key elements of NNSA and national lab culture. Responsible managers for the ICF Program have been identified at NNSA headquarters and field offices and also at participating laboratory sites. Performance standards, usually in the form of specific milestones, are defined for each individual program element and manager. Construction projects are executed via externally reviewed project execution plans; progress is reviewed on a regular basis. Cost and schedule data is collected and tracked for the ICF Campaign and NIF Construction Project. Technical progress is tracked via milestones. Award of contract fees is based on Annual Performance assessments of the three National Weapons Laboratories. Review criteria for these assessments include ICF and NIF Construction Project objectives. The NIF Construction Project's industrial contracts include performance thresholds and appropriate incentives. Federal managers are held accountable for program performance in manager evaluations.

Evidence: National Weapons Laboratory Performance Assessments; University of Rochester quarterly and annual progress reports; University of Rochester contract renewal review; General Atomics, Inc. semi-annual review; ICF Program Plan/Strategic Plan; NIF Construction Project Execution Plan; ZR Project Execution Plan; ICF Level 1 & 2 milestone list and updates; and NNSA Federal Employee evaluations

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: The NNSA tracks expenditures at the sub-program level using its official Budget and Reporting (B&R) classification codes and the DOE Single Integrated Financial Management System. Program and Project Managers allocate funding through the work authorization process and monitor costs monthly. Funding B&R code structure is based on Campaign major technical efforts (MTEs) and instructions that are included with Approved Funding Program/Work Authorization Statements when funds are released to sites make the intended purposes clear. Sites are required to report obligations and expenditures to NNSA in a timely fashion.

Evidence: NNSA Financial Plan and monthly Work Authorization Statements; laboratory financial reports; and NIF Construction Project monthly reports.

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The DOE and NNSA use distinct evaluation procedures and criteria to achieve efficiency and effectiveness of research and development investment dollars. There are clear criteria for laboratories to use in make/buy decisions when it is appropriate to have competition for subcontracted/outsourced work. For NIF construction, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has worked extensively with industrial sources to develop required technologies and control component production costs. Multiple vendors have been employed where appropriate to maintain competition and reduce costs. Fabrication of targets for ICF experimental facilities has been outsourced to General Atomics, Inc. This has centralized target fabrication capabilities and reduced costs. All University grants are awarded on a competitive basis.

Evidence: NNSA Critical Decision Process (see DOE Order 413.3); NIF Construction Project Execution Plan; NNSA Contract with General Atomics, Inc.; DP Stockpile Science Academic Alliance Grant Solicitation and Selection Process; and National Weapons Laboratory Performance Assessments.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: There is strong collaboration and coordination between the ICF Campaign and other activities within the SSP/NNSA, DOE, and other government agencies. An HEDP Executives group facilitates interactions with other portions of the SSP. At NNSA direction, individual sites have established review committees to ensure experiments on major facilities are coordinated and dedicated to high priority activities. Regular meetings are held with the DOE Office of Science to coordinate management of congressionally mandated activities relevant to production of energy from inertial fusion.

Evidence: NNSA Strategic Plan; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Campaign Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; SSM PEIS; DP FY 2005 PPBE Strategic Guidance; NIF Experiment Planning Advisory Committee (EPAC); OMEGA and Z scheduling committees; National Weapons Laboratory Performance Assessments; ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; High Energy Density Physics Study; 2002 National Research Council Report on High Energy Density Physics - "Frontiers in High Energy Density Physics"; and 2002 National Academy of Science Report on the Physics of the Universe - "Quarks to Cosmos Report."

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The NNSA is covered by DOE's financial management policies, procedures, and practices that meet all statutory requirements. The accounting services for NNSA are provided by DOE, and these are free of material internal control weaknesses. The DOE's financial statements have been given a clean audit opinion in 6 of the last 7 years. Day-to-day NNSA operations are supported through the NNSA PPBE processes that require the integration of financial and performance management information systems at each phase. The DOE is well underway on a new initiative (I-MANAGE) in support of the President's Management Agenda to fully integrate all financial, performance, and administrative data for the DOE into a single system within the next 5 years that will include all NNSA information.

Evidence: DOE Financial Management Orders and NNSA PPBE Guidance Documents located on the NNSA web-site

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The setting of clear goals (long-term and annual) for the overall program and integration of research and development activities are the major management issues requiring attention. The NNSA has developed and implemented a strategic plan, FYNSP, and associated PPBE process to address the first issue of setting clear goals. The integration issue has been addressed via the formation of the Office of Program Integration (NA-13) within DP. Within the ICF Campaign, the NNSA implemented an "HEDP Executive Group," consisting of senior managers from NNSA and the National Laboratories, to address integration issues. This group examines overall ICF Campaign strategic direction and integration and works to ensure that program resources are used in the most efficient and effective manner. The oversight of the NIF Construction Project was improved several years ago by creating a specific NNSA Office of the National Ignition Facility Project (now NA-10.1). The Foster Panel noted that, when problems developed in the NIF, "NNSA took action to clarify roles and responsibilities in a manner that has significantly improved management effectiveness, program performance, and confidence in the program plan."

Evidence: NNSA Defense Programs documentation on PPBES; Program Progress Reviews and Program Self Assessments; NNSA/DP documentation on NA-13; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Campaign Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; and 2001 & 2003 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel")

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: In September 2000, the NNSA rebaselined the NIF Project because of significant cost over-runs and schedule delays. Given this need to rebaseline, the program will exceed original cost and schedule estimates. (However, since the rebaselining the program has met all of its interim goals within cost and schedule and has been commended for good program management.)

Evidence: The NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Campaign Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; FY 2003 and Draft FY 2004-05 ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; National Weapons Laboratory Performance Assessment Criteria; NIF Construction Project Data Sheet, milestone list, and Project Execution Plan; ICF Level 1 & 2 milestone list; and annual work scope authorization statements/agreements for the three National Weapons Laboratories, University of Rochester Laboratory for Laser Energetics, Naval Research Laboratory, and General Atomics, Inc.

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program allocate funds through a competitive, merit-based process, or, if not, does it justify funding methods and document how quality is maintained?

Explanation: The program manager allocates research & development funds to participating laboratories through a process that evaluates stockpile stewardship requirements and identifies the technical means that can best meet those requirements. Program reviews evaluate the quality of implementation and execution. Weapons laboratory contract award fees are paid following an annual performance assessment in which the quality of program management and technical executions are assessment criteria elements.

Evidence: Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Campaign Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; NIF Construction Project Execution Plan, milestone list, and Project Data Sheet; ICF Level 1 & 2 milestone list; National Weapons Laboratory Performance Assessments; and technical progress reports.

Does competition encourage the participation of new/first-time performers through a fair and open application process?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program adequately define appropriate termination points and other decision points?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

If the program includes technology development or construction or operation of a facility, does the program clearly define deliverables and required capability/performance characteristics and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: The 2001 GAO "Follow-Up Review of the National Ignition Facility" expressed concern over the role and performance of NIF. It is not clear that NNSA has addressed all of these concerns and, therefore, demonstrated adequate progress towards achieving its long-term goals. However, NNSA has met all of its interim goals since the September 2000 program rebaselining.

Evidence: NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Campaign Program Plan; ICF Strategic Plan; ICF Campaign Implementation Plans; ICF Program Level 1 & 2 milestone list and updates; NIF Construction Project Execution Plan; Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee reviews of the ICF Program; ICF Campaign/Program external review history; and 2000 "Garwin" and 2002 "Trivelpiece" Pulsed Power Program Reviews

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Annual performance goals are established based upon technical milestones expected to be completed each year. Milestone scheduling and progress are tracked by NNSA in the campaign's annual Implementation Plan. The NIF Construction Project is meeting all of its cost, schedule and technical objectives. (In March 2003, the Project achieved its goal of demonstrating full performance in a single laser beam, thus proving the laser design.) Research and Development (R&D) milestones are achieved with some modifications in schedule because of funding availability and the difficulty inherent in forecasting scientific progress. For example, as documented under the measures tab, in 2002 the campaign achieved all of its annual targets with the exception of those related to procurement of some items needed to support NIF experiments.

Evidence: The NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Campaign Program Plan; ICF Implementation Plans; ICF Level 1 & 2 milestone list and updates; National Weapons Laboratory Performance Assessments; and DOE/IG-0598.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: Throughout its history, the ICF Campaign has taken positive actions to improve efficiency and cost effectiveness. Examples include competitive procurements using a multiple vendor base to reduce program costs for facility components and support equipment, developing a common diagnostic platform for use at all ICF facilities, and integrating efforts across ICF facilities to achieve national long-term goals. Understanding of learning curves on existing facilities increases efficiency and results in cost savings on new or upgraded facilities. Efficiency improvements include development of specific techniques on a facility, which are then applied to other facilities. Additional improvements in efficiency and cost savings result from obtaining more accurate data or from a reduction in the time devoted to facility maintenance or hardware installation (e.g., the increased efficiency in installing single laser beams at the NIF). Information technologies (e.g., video conferencing, e-mail, web pages, and electronic data transfer) are used to control costs and increase effectiveness by reducing the need for face-to-face meetings and facilitating communications and coordination among participants.

Evidence: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ICF Annual Reports; University of Rochester Laboratory for Laser Energetics quarterly and annual reports; ICF site monthly updates; NIF Project monthly status reports; ZR Project monthly status reports; ZR Mission Need Report; Z and OMEGA scheduling committees; NIF diagnostics quarterly progress reports; and international agreements on pulsed power science and/or laser technology.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No private or governmental programs have the same or similar purpose and goals. However, the use of ICF expertise and facilities to make positive contributions to the success of other governmental programs and initiatives in science validates that the program is of high technical quality and delivers results. In 2003, the National Research Council (NRC), in its Frontiers in High Energy Density Physics Report, concluded that "Recent advances....make extremely high energy density matter accessible in the laboratory," and NNSA's state-of-the-art ICF facilities "allow repeatable experiments and controlled parameter variations to elucidate the important underlying physics.' Comparison of ICF program performance to other scientific research programs can also be measured in terms of professional awards. ICF managers and technical staff have received a number of awards and accolades, including membership in the National Academies of Science and Engineering, fellowship in professional societies (2-3/year), RD100 awards, and major American Physical Society and Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers awards.

Evidence: NIF Construction Project National Safety Council Occupational Safety/Health Award; NIF Project Construction Users Roundtable award for outstanding achievement in construction Industry Safety Excellence; 2002 Joint NNSA-Office of Science Review of ICF-managed High Average Power Laser Program (HAPL); NIF Project Director and ZR Project Director DOE/NNSA M&O Contractor management excellence awards; Industry Week Award for Z Accelerator; National Research Council Report on High Energy Density Physics - "Frontiers in High Energy Density Physics," 2003; National Academy of Science Report on the Physics of the Universe - "Quarks to Cosmos Report," 2002; NIF Construction Project monthly reports and Press releases; Office of Engineering and Contract Management Project Status Reports; NNSA monthly Project Status Snapshots for Management Reports; and file on ICF Program/NIF Project awards, accomplishments, and publications.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The effectiveness of the ICF Campaign has been reviewed separately and as part of the overall SSP. Internal NNSA reviews and independent external reviews have validated the need for the ICF Campaign and the progress of the ICF effort. The DOE Inspector General (IG) reviewed the NIF Project in June 2001 and reported significant progress towards constructing the facility within the revised schedule and cost baselines. In addition, the Project has demonstrated full performance in a single laser beamline, setting a world record for laser performance.

Evidence: High Energy Density Physics Study; National Weapons Laboratory Performance Assessments; Inertial Confinement Fusion Advisory Committee reviews of the ICF Program; ICF Campaign/Program external review history; Inspector General Report on the NIF, 2003; 2000 "Garwin" and 2002 "Trivelpiece" Pulsed Power Program Reviews; 2001 & 2003 Reports to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel"); National Research Council Report on Frontiers in High Energy Density Physics, 2003; National Academy of Sciences and JASON reviews of the ICF Program and NIF Project; JASON High Energy Laser Study; ZR Mission Need Review; OMEGA EP Mission Need Review; Los Alamos National Laboratory Physics Division Advisory Committee reviews; NNSA Reviews of the Naval Research Laboratory ICF Program; National Weapons Laboratory Contractor Performance Assessments; and DOE Stockpile Stewardship Program 30-Day Review, November 1999.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Significant cost over-runs and schedule delays resulted in NNSA having to rebaseline the NIF project in September 2000. Given this need to rebaseline, the program will exceed original estimates. However, since the rebaselining the program has met all of its interim goals within cost and schedule and has been commended for good program management.

Evidence: The NIF Project Execution Plan; NNSA FY 2004-08 FYNSP; NNSA FY 2004 Congressional Budget Request; Draft FY 2004-09 ICF Campaign Program Plan; ICF Implementation Plans; ICF Level 1 & 2 milestone list and updates; Congressional correspondence on NIF/Ignition program; University of California Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Performance Assessments; and DOE/IG-0598.

If the program includes construction of a facility, were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation:  

Evidence: