Detailed Information on the
National Nuclear Security Administration: Nonproliferation and International Security Assessment

Design and implement a management information system to institutionalize programming, planning, budgeting, reporting activities; improve program effectiveness/efficiencies; and track performance.

Administration will arrange for an independent evaluation of sufficient scope and quality to indicate if the program??s is effectively achieving results.

Measure: Annual number of international and domestic experts (e.g. IAEA inspectors, export control officers, physical protection personnel) trained in nonproliferation to fulfill the President's policy delineated on 11 February 2004 and implemented the U.S.-sponsored UN Security Council Resolution 1540 criminalizing proliferation.

Explanation:

Measure: Cumulative metric tons of Russian weapons-usable HEU that U.S. experts have confirmed as permanently eliminated from the Russian stockpile under the HEU Purchase Agreement.

Explanation:

Measure: Annual number of technologies transferred to international regimes and other countries to prevent and counter WMD proliferation and nuclear-related terrorism.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Nonproliferation and International Security (NIS) program has a clear purpose -- to strengthen the global nuclear nonproliferation regime by 1) limiting sensitive exports; 2)supporting international safeguards; and 3) providing technical advice to develop and implement U.S. policy (treaties, agreements, and mutual inspections).

Evidence: Office of Nonproliferation and International Security Strategic Plan (January 2003)

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

Explanation: President Bush's speech at the National Defense University on 2/11/04 outlined several challenges to the nonproliferation regime that the post-9/11 world faces, including sub-state terrorists, clandestine WMD programs in countries such as Iran and North Korea, and the clandestine network of nuclear suppliers uncovered in Pakistan. The NIS program addresses these issues by strengthening the nonproliferation regime and securing technology and materials.

Evidence: National Security Strategy (September 2002) (pp. 5-7, 12-16); National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (December 2002) (pp. 2-6); NSPD17/HSPD-4; NNSA Strategic Plan (February 2002) (pp. 2-3, 7-10); NA-24 Strategic Plan (pp. 2-7)

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

Explanation: The NIS program focuses the unique highly technical expertise of DOE/NNSA's national laboratories on resolving global nonproliferation issues, limiting sensitive WMD exports, minimizing global quantities of weapons-usable materials, and strengthening the global nonproliferation regime. This expertise is unique from that of DoD or State because of NNSA's sole responsibility for development of nuclear weapons.

Evidence: NA-24 Strategic Plan (pp. 2-7, 44-47); FY2005 Budget (pp. 126-132, 383-384, 427-441); NNSA PPBE process; PPBS

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

Explanation: NIS programs are free of major design flaws and are accomplishing their stated goals. The scope of NIS programming is extremely broad and includes both policy and implementation functions. However, the Secretary has directed NNSA to re-evaluate whether minor alternations in functional alignment are warranted in light of an evolving threat environment, exemplified by recent revelations about clandestine proliferation networks.

Evidence: NA-24 Strategic Plan (pp. 44-47); FY2005 Budget (pp. 126-132, 383-384, 427-441); NNSA PPBE process

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

Explanation: Based upon annual program reviews and explicit prioritization of activities, resources are allocated to specific programs and to the national laboratories, contractors, and foreign entities that carry out NIS projects. Funding priorities are based on NNSA Strategic Planning Guidance, the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, and risk-based decision making. Detailed statements of work, performance targets and schedules ensure that work conducted is aligned with mission and goal of the program. An NSC review of NNSA nonproliferation programs found that NIS programs have 'satisfactory controls to prevent diversion of assistance,' thereby assuring that resources directly serve intended program purposes.

Evidence: NNSA Strategic Planning Guidance (2005-2009) (pp. 15-16); National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (pp. 2-6); Statements of Work; Annual Program Review activities; Program Execution Plans; Bilateral Implementing Arrangements; NNSA PPBE process

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: The NIS program uses a limited number of specific long-term measures to meaningfully assess progress in achieving its program purpose. They are 1) by 2019 secure 100% of 5716kg of globally targeted sensitive nuclear material, 2) by 2014, convert 100% of 98 targeted research and test reactors from HEU to LEU fuel, 3) by 2011, train 13000 personnel (e.g. export control and customs officials, IAEA inspectors) in nuclear nonproliferation since 9/11/01, and 4) by 2011, reduce average cost per review of WMD export license applications to $420.

Evidence: NA-24 Strategic Plan (pp. 9-11, 28-29); FY2005 Budget (pp. 126-132, 383-384, 427-441); NNSA PPBE process; PPBS

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

Explanation: Given the challenges and unexpected opportunities caused by global events (for example, the clandestine network developed by A.Q. Khan, and Libya's renunciation of its WMD programs), the unprecedented nature of repatriating HEU to Russia, and the sensitivities of encouraging private operators to convert reactors to LEU fuels, the NIS measures are ambitious, but realistic and achievable.

Evidence: NA-24 Strategic Plan (pp. 10-43); FY2005 Budget (pp. 126-132, 383-384, 427-441); NNSA PPBE process; PPBS

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

Explanation: The NIS program has a limited number of specific annual measures to meaningfully assess progress in achieving the program's long-term measures. For FY2006 they are 1) secure 20% of 5716kg of globally targeted sensitive nuclear material, 2) convert 60% of 98 targeted research and test reactors from HEU to LEU fuel, 3) train 7000 personnel (e.g. export control and customs officials, IAEA inspectors) in nuclear nonproliferation since 9/11/01, and 4) reduce average cost per review of WMD export license applications to $430.

Evidence: NA-24 Strategic Plan (pp. 10-43); FY2005 Budget (pp. 126-132, 383-384, 427-441); NNSA PPBE process; PPBS

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

Explanation: The NIS maintains a detailed set of ambitious annual milestones and deliverables documented in project work plans, statements of work, and annual operating plans to monitor progress toward achieving annual measures.

Evidence: Project Workplans; Statements of Work

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

Explanation: NIS communicates annual and long-term performance goals to implementing partners through program execution plans and annual program guidance. Contractors and national laboratory partners are held accountable for meeting project milestones in support of these goals in quarterly reports, annual program reviews, and laboratory performance reviews. Meetings are held on a regular basis with domestic and foreign partners to continually reinforce performance goals and to track progress. Agreement on annual work plans and long-term goals are reached with foreign partners through action sheets, bilateral agreements, joint statements of intent, such as one recently signed with China, and in records from Joint Coordinating Committees such as for the Warhead Safety and Security Exchange (WSSX). Agreement with other USG Agencies is reached through NSC-coordinated strategy meetings.

Evidence: Annual Reviews; JCC Records of Meeting; Program Execution Plans; Program Guidance; Quarterly reports

Are independent 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: GAO, the NSC, and the DOE IG have performed 5 evaluations of NIS programs in four years. The NSC reviewed NNSA's nonproliferation programs in 2002 and found all to be effective. The IG reviewed NIS's automated export control system, and role in Commerce control and munitions lists. Recommendations for export control systems have been acted upon. Currently, RERTR and RRRFR are undergoing a GAO audit.

Evidence: Inspection Report on "Inspection of the Department of Energy's Automated Export Control System," December 2001, Report IG-0533 (pp. 1-15); Inspection Report on "Inspection of the Department of Energy's Role in the Commerce Control List and the U.S. Munitions List," March 2001, Report INS-O-01-03 (pp. 1-7)

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: NNSA budget requests are explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals and resource via the comprehensive PPBE process. Long-term performance goals are linked in a performance cascade to annual targets and detailed technical milestones. Budget and resources trade-offs and decisions are evaluated based on the impact to annual and long-term performance measures. Each unique program goal has its own B&R structure to track resource expenditures independently.

Evidence: NNSA PPBE process; PDMs

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

Explanation: NIS is engaged in a continual, long-term effort to strengthen its strategic planning. NIS released a strategic plan in FY2003, which corresponds with the National Security Strategy (2002), the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (2002), and the NNSA Strategic Plan. During annual and mid-year NNSA Management Council reviews, annual and long-term strategies for NIS sub-elements are evaluated against the evolving threat environment and adjustments are made accordingly. For example, according to a Management Council recommendation in FY2003, greater emphasis was placed on training export control officials in transshipment and emerging supplier states.

Evidence: NA-24 Strategic Plan (pp. 44-47); National Security Strategy (pp. 5-7, 12-16); National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction (pp. 2-6); NNSA Strategic Plan (pp. 16-19, 28-35)

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: NIS requires monthly and quarterly reporting against baseline program milestones and costing targets from its national laboratory and other contractors. This information is used to determine whether corrective action is necessary. Contractor performance is reviewed quarterly and annually to correct systematic project management deficiencies. Official DOE accounting data is reviewed monthly by federal managers as a check on contractor reports.

Evidence: Monthly and Quarterly Reports; Program Reviews; Financial Data; Peformance Appraisals

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Program directors' performance appraisal standards include ambitious targets that support program goals. They are held accountable for meeting performance targets, cost and schedule through their annual performance appraisals. Program managers take past performance of contractors and national laboratories into account when follow-on funding decisions are made.

Evidence: Performance Appraisals; Lab performance appraisals

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

Explanation: NIS funds are clearly identified for individual projects through work authorizations when they are obligated. Strict project selection and review procedures, as well as rigorous implementation oversight, ensure that project funds are used in accordance with program objectives. In recent years, continuing resolutions and mid-year budget supplementals have created challenges to timely obligation of funds by the end of the fiscal year. NIS management addresses this by adjusting schedules with more work in the second half of the year. Unobligated carryover as a percentage of new budget authority was cut in half from 40% in FY2002 to 20% in FY2003 --nearly all of which was caused by Agreement delays on BN-350 work, and the balance from delays caused by the war in Iraq.

Evidence: Financial Plans; NNSA PPBE process

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

Explanation: NIS uses efficiency measures to find ways of doing more with fewer resources, for example, to increase the number of export license reviews without additional resources. NIS also uses electronic databases and tracking systems to efficiently and cost-effectively manage its programs. For example, time-sensitive export license reviews are conducted via the Proliferation Information Network System (PINS), a secure client-server network vastly improving security, timeliness, capacity, and access to information for technical and policy experts at the national laboratories and headquarters, resulting in a decrease in average cost per review from $969 in FY2002 to $636 in FY2003 (a savings of 34%). Further improvements will reduce the cost to $430 by FY2009. Competitive sourcing of contracts is used as appropriate per federal regulation.

Evidence: NNSA PPBE process; PINS

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NIS is in nearly daily coordination with colleagues elsewhere in NNSA, DOE, and other agencies that results in improved U.S. policy and national security. For example, NIS provided technical expertise to a USG mission to eliminate Libya's clandestine WMD program. Together with State, Defense and other Agencies, NIS personnel planned and executed several on-the-ground operations to remove designs, materials, and equipment that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

Evidence: ProStrat PCC meeting notes; INFCIRC/225; Joint Standing Committee on Nuclear Energy Cooperation meeting minutes and action sheets

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: NIS 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 clear audit opinion in 7 of the last 8 years. NIS program staff reviews accounting reports on a monthly basis to monitor obligations and costs for all projects and sites.

Evidence: DOE Financial Management Orders; PPBE Guidance Documents; PPBS

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

Explanation: Preventive and corrective procedures are in place to identify and address management deficiencies. Program Execution Plans and program guidance are reviewed annually and updated as necessary. The NNSA Management Council annually reviews the NIS program. NIS participates in NNSA-wide efforts to improve program management practices in areas such as leadership, diversity, contract administration, and project management. In addition, NIS has incorporated management improvements into its strategic planning process, including review of management structure, program and project management practices, internal and external communications, staff development and succession planning.

Evidence: NA-24 Strategic Plan (pp. 44-47); NNSA Strategic Plan (pp. 28-35); Annual Program Reviews; Leadership Skills Training; Diversity Training; PPBS

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

Explanation: NIS is on track to achieve its long-term performance goals. In FY2003, The NIS program 1) secured 10% of 5716 kg of globally targeted sensitive nuclear material, and is on track to secure 100% by FY2019, 2) converted 45% of 98 targeted research and test reactors from HEU to LEU fuel, and is on track to complete 100% by FY2014, and 3) trained 3095 personnel in nuclear nonproliferation since 9/11/01, and is on track to train over 13000 by FY2011.

Evidence: PPBE

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

Explanation: To a large extent, NIS achieved its annual performance goals for FY2003, and is on track to meet them in FY2004. In FY2003, it 1) secured 10% of 5716 kg of globally targeted sensitive nuclear material, 2) converted 45% of 98 targeted research and test reactors from HEU to LEU fuel, 3) trained 3095 personnel in nuclear nonproliferation since 9/11/01, and 4) reduced the average cost per review of WMD export license applications to $636. FY2003 final JOULE report says NIS has two greens (export and training) and one yellow (EIS for Russian Fuel Return). Protracted negotiations with Kazakhstan regarding long-term storage options delayed BN-350 program progress significantly. These negotiations were completed successfully in 2003 and a new baseline will be established in FY2005.

Evidence: PPBE; JOULE

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

Explanation: Despite the challenges of decreased personnel and increased mission, NIS has been able to achieve its goals. The scope of NIS programs has grown, as recent revelations about the extent of Libya's clandestine weapons program and the A.Q. Khan network have demonstrated. For example, in FY2003, NIS began reviewing chemical, biological and missile export license applications in addition to nuclear, nearly doubling the caseload. However, NIS reduced the cost per technical review from $969 in FY2002 to $636 in FY2003 (a savings of 34%). Further improvements will reduce the cost-per-review to $430 in FY2009.

Evidence: PPBE; internal management council reviews

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

Explanation: The NSC completed its review of all USG nonproliferation programs in January 2002, and found that NIS programs were effectively run, achieving results, and that export control programs should be expanded.

Evidence: NSC Review

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

Explanation: While independent evaluations have been conducted, they are somewhat dated. The NSC completed its review of all USG nonproliferation programs in 2002, and found that NIS programs were effectively run and achieving results. In its two reviews of export controls elements in 2001, the IG concluded that NIS is 'providing appropriate support to the Commerce Control List' and that the automated export controls system was 'adequate to..fulfilling its responsibilities.' Two recommended improvements to the system have been made.

Evidence: NSC Review (2002), IG reports cited in Q2.6