Detailed Information on the
National Nuclear Security Administration: Engineering Campaign Assessment

Annually, expand the linkage of contractor performance awards to performance evaluation and strengthening procedures to hold contractors accountable for cost, schedule, and results.

Continue to improve the responsiveness of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure by coordinating program activity with the Complex Transformation Strategy Record of Decision.

Continue to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Nuclear Weapons Complex by integrating the program into the new Office of Defense Programs National Level Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) plan.

Improving the coordination of activities across multiple NNSA programs aimed at nuclear weapons activities, especially research and development work??especially across the six NNSA campaigns.

Measure: Cumulative percentage of the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Applications (MESA) facility project completed (total project cost), while maintaining a Cost Performance Index of 0.9-1.15.

Explanation:By 2008, complete the major facilities of the MESA project (within the total project cost) while maintaining a Cost Performance Index of 0.9-1.15, and by 2009, complete all activities for project closeout.

Measure: Cumulative percentage of progress towards an improved initiation system to meet detonation safety requirements for future alterations or modifications to stockpiled weapons, measured by the number of milestones, in the implementation plan, completed.

Explanation:By 2012, complete development of the next generation initiation system to meet detonation safety requirements for future alterations or modifications to stockpiled weapons.

Measure: Cumulative percentage of progress towards completion of aging models and assessments, diagnostics, and tools needed for science-based lifetime predictions of specific weapon components and for transformation to more predictive, stockpile surveillance, measured by the number of milestones, in the implementation plans completed.

Explanation:By 2016, complete the aging models and assessments, diagnostics, and tools needed to achieve science-based lifetime predictions and stockpile surveillance transformation.

Measure: Cumulative percentage of progress towards system engineering methodology for assessing and predicting the effects of large thermal, mechanical, and combined forces on nuclear weapons for future alterations or modifications, measured by the number of experimental data sets, in the implementation plan, completed.

Explanation:By 2012, complete the development of system engineering methodology for assessing and predicting the effects of large thermal, mechanical, and combined forces on nuclear weapons for the future alterations or modifications to stockpiled weapons.

Measure: Cumulative percentage completion of design and qualification tools for meeting requirements for survivability in intense radiation environments for and any future alts or mods to replace the existing proof-testing approach that uses significant amounts of highly enriched uranium measured by the number of milestones, in the implementation plan, completed.

Explanation:By 2014, complete the replacement of relevant design and assessment technologies for weapon components, allowing future alts or mods to meet requirements for survivability in intense radiation environments.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Engineering Campaign is to develop capabilities to assess and improve the safety, reliability, and performance of the non-nuclear components in nuclear weapons without further underground testing. Additionally, the purpose is to increase confidence in the design and assessment of these components by improving our fundamental understanding of the complex phenomena that control their performance, how they respond to external stimuli (large thermal, mechanical, and combined forces and extremely high radiation fields), and the effects of aging, especially plutonium.

Evidence: President's FY 2007 Budget and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) FY 2007-2011 Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), Feb 06; Defense Programs Priorities (as contained in Defense Programs FY 2008-2012 Program & Resource Guidance, Mar 06); DOE Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan, 2004; Engineering Campaign Program Plan for FY 2006-2011, Sep 05; and individual FY 2006 Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans.

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

Explanation: The program provides advanced engineering support to Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) and other campaigns such as Readiness Campaign. The Engineering Campaign addresses all problems and needs, covering many technological areas -- enhancing surety; ensuring the understanding and management of aging issues; certification and annual assessment of weapon performance, model validation; model development/ validation for understanding survivability and nuclear effects; and investment in R&D of five Universities to design, develop, and deploy system engineering through advanced robotics technology. The role of this program increases as the stockpile ages and becomes smaller, as the threat environment and/or weapons change, and as we progress farther from the underground nuclear testing that was once used to validate weapon performance and identify shortcomings in design or capability.

Evidence: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended); Department of Energy (DOE) Strategic Plan, Sep 03; National Nuclear Security Administration Act (P.L. 106-65, October 5, 1999, as amended); Report of the Commission on Maintaining United States Nuclear Expertise, Mar 99 ("Chiles Report"); DOE Strategic Plan, Sep 03; NNSA Strategic Plan, Nov 04; Office of Defense Programs (DP) Strategic Vision for 2030, Feb 05; President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; FY 2006-2010 Stockpile Stewardship Plan, Vol 1, Chapter 3, Apr 05; DRAFT Engineering Campaign Technology Roadmap; and Engineering Campaign Program Plan.

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

Explanation: The Engineering Campaign, without redundancy, shares with other campaigns the responsibility for different aspects of long-term nuclear weapons-related R&D. While other federal agencies, including the Department of Defense (DoD) and state and local agencies, support engineering R&D, none perform similar nuclear weapons-related tasks, which are part of the unique mission given to the NNSA/DOE. The Engineering Campaign develops capabilities to assess and improve the safety, reliability, and performance of the non-nuclear components in nuclear weapons increasing confidence in the design and assessment of these components by improving our fundamental understanding of the complex phenomena that control their performance, how they respond to external stimuli (large thermal, mechanical, and combined forces and extremely high radiation fields), and the effects of aging.

Evidence: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (as amended); the Energy Reorganization Act; legislation establishing the NNSA; the Chiles Commission Report; DOE Strategic Plan; NNSA Strategic Plan, Nov 04; President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Stockpile Stewardship Plan; DRAFT Technology Roadmap for DSW, ASC, EC, SC, and RTBF; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; and individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans.

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

Explanation: A solid program concept has been developed and approved by DOE and NNSA. All activities and the schedule for their accomplishment are implemented through an integrated plan whose milestones and deliverables are monitored through monthly reviews and various reporting mechanisms. Risk analyses have been accomplished and mitigation efforts identified and implemented to ensure success.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Defense Programs Program Management Manual; NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process input; (Program Specific) Program Plan; (Program Specific) Implementation Plan; (Program Specific) Integrated Project Plan; (Program Specific) Risk Management Plan; annual assessment reports; program reviews; annual site reports; and various panel reviews. Also, list any Program specific information that is pertinent.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation (PPBE) process includes detailed customer (mostly DSW and the other campaigns) and contractor involvement in the Programming Phase to ensure optimal allotment of funding resources to the specific program elements and contractors. The Engineering Campaign program aligns its investments with the actual needs of the intended beneficiaries, develops the corresponding budget allocations, and then uses the DOE/NNSA Work Authorization (WA) and Approved Funding Program (AFP) processes to ensure the direct targeting of funds to Management and Operating (M&O) contractors to perform specific work as detailed in program execution guidance. The WAs are used to link program plan requirements for cost, scope, and schedule with individual site performance and contracts. This process effectively targets and directs resources to the M&O contractors to best meet the customer requirements defined by DSW and the other Campaigns.

Evidence: President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans; Engineering Campaign site task plans; DSW requirements documents, including LEP integrated schedules, Life Extension Option (LEO) documentation, and Production and Planning Directive (P&PD) schedules; NNSA PPBE Process (BOP 001.1 - 001.4); and WA and AFP files.

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 Engineering Campaign long-term performance measures that reflect the program's purpose are: (1) by 2008, complete the major facilities of the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Application (MESA) project within the total project cost, while maintaining a Cost Performance Index of 0.9-1.15; (2) by 2012, complete the development of the next-generation initiation system to improve nuclear detonation safety for the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) and LEPs; (3) by 2016, complete the enhancements (models, diagnostics, etc.) to stockpile surveillance needed to transform surveillance to a more predictive and cost-effective discipline; (4) by 2009, complete the development of system engineering methodology (based on completed experiments) for assessing and predicting the effects of large thermal, mechanical, and combined forces on nuclear weapons for the RRW and LEPs; and (5) by 2014, complete the development of next-generation design and assessment technologies to nuclear survivability radiation requirements on nuclear weapons for the RRW and LEPs.

Evidence: President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Sub-program Implementation Plans; M&O contractor Performance Evaluation Plans (PEPs) and evaluations; the Engineering Campaign Technology Roadmap; and Engineering Campaign Level 2 milestone status in the DP Milestone Reporting Tool (MRT).

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

Explanation: While achievable within the target time frames, the long-term measures and time frames are very ambitious, given the one-of-a-kind advanced engineering science required to design, certify, and assess nuclear weapons with the strict adherence to safety and security requirements, the commitment to forego underground nuclear testing, aging of weapon systems and components beyond their design life, and retiring of nuclear experts with design, production, and underground nuclear test experience.

Evidence: Stockpile Stewardship Plan; Congressional testimony; Certification and Qualification Plans; Stockpile Transformation; Surveillance Transformation Study; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Sub-Program Implementation Plans; Engineering Campaign milestone status in the DP MRT; DP Quarterly Program Review (QPR) briefings; and associated documentation.

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 Engineering Campaign has a limited number of specific annual targets that demonstrate progress toward attainment of its long-term measures. For FY 2008, they are: (1) complete 90% of the Microsystems and Engineering Sciences Applications (MESA) project (total project cost), while maintaining a Cost Performance Index of 0.9-1.15; (2) complete 75% of the next-generation initiation system to improve nuclear detonation safety for the RRW and LEPs; (3) complete 47% of the enhancements to stockpile surveillance needed to transform surveillance to a more predictive and cost-effective discipline; (4) complete 53% of the development of system engineering methodology for assessing and predicting the effects of large thermal, mechanical, and combined forces on nuclear weapons for the RRW and LEPs; and (5) complete 48% of the development of next-generation design and assessment technologies to nuclear survivability radiation requirements on nuclear weapons for the RRW and LEPs.

Evidence: President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Sub-program Implementation Plans; DOE Performance Assessment Report (PAR)/Joule reporting system; Sandia Engineering Sciences Research Foundation (ESRF) Annual Review documentation; Engineering Campaign milestone status in the DP MRT; DP QPR briefings; M&O Contractor PEPs and evaluations; and Engineering Campaign Program Reviews.

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

Explanation: The baselines in the Campaign's Program Plan and sub-program implementation plans describe the scope, schedule, and costs of the activities and deliverables. These deliverables define ambitious targets with long-term and annual performance measures. The Engineering Campaign program has four sub-programs, not including MESA Construction. The sub-program targets are defined as Level 1 milestones and are supported by annual programmatic Level 2 milestones. Additional lower milestone levels at sites provide more measures of progress.

Evidence: President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; M&O Contractor PEPs; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans; DP MRT; DP QPR briefings; DOE Performance and Accountability/Joule Reporting System; and Engineering Campaign Program Reviews.

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: NNSA Headquarters and sites in the Nuclear Weapon Complex collaborate in establishing the plans and determining the performance measures and supporting milestones to meet the program goal. The NNSA PPBE process enables coordination across all elements of DP and provides the opportunity for the Engineering Campaign Program Manager to present the Engineering Campaign's fiscally-constrained scope and schedule to the other programs and the Nuclear Weapons Complex sites. Resourced site task plans are developed to meet annual program milestones that support these long-term performance measures, which are agreed upon by the M&O contractors and Federal Government managers and documented in the change-controlled program plan, in Sub-program implementation plans, and the DP MRT for the execution year.

Evidence: NNSA PPBE process (e.g., BOP 001.1 - 001.4) and FY 2006 documents located on the NNSA PPBE web site; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans; site execution plans for FY 2006; Engineering Campaign milestone status in the DP MRT; FY 2006 site M&O contractor PEPs; and individual personnel measures of performance (MOPs) as appropriate.

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: All Sub-programs of the Campaign undergo annual independent reviews. The Enhanced Surveillance Sub-program is evaluated by separate independent review panels for each major technical effort every two years (most recent in Mar 05 and Apr 06); the Enhanced Surveillance pit lifetime effort was reviewed by a JASON panel in Jul 05 and Jan 06; the Radiation Effects Sciences Program External Review Panel, last on May 06, examined program aspects within the Nuclear Survivability Sub-program; the Qualification Alternatives to Sandia Pulsed Reactor (QASPR) was externally reviewed in May 06; the Weapons System Engineering Assessment Sub-program is externally reviewed annually in conjunction with the ASC Campaign; the Defense Programs Surety Committee conducts quarterly reviews of the Enhanced Surety progress; and the MESA project is reviewed monthly by a DOE External Advisory Board. Additionally, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB), DOE Inspector General (IG), 2003 Foster Panel, and Government Accountability Office (GAO) have reviewed campaign activities.

Evidence: Enhanced Surveillance Annual Review presentation materials and Review Panel Report, Mar 04 and Mar 05; Radiation Effects Sciences Program External Review Panel, May 06; Sandia Engineering Sciences Research Foundation (ESRF) Annual Review documentation; monthly DOE Project review files; Defense Programs Surety Committee quarterly review presentations; 2003 Foster Panel Report; and other Program Review reports.

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: Each NNSA program is managed using long-term performance goals with annual targets that cascade seamlessly from the NNSA Strategic Plan and also link to supporting milestones, deliverables, and the budgets for program performers. The NNSA program performance measures are part of the framework for resource allocation decisions made in the annual PPBE process. Annually, the NNSA planning-programming decisions are documented in the Administrator's Final Recommendation (AFR) and used to develop the budget requests during the Budgeting Phase. Program and financial performance for each measure are corporately monitored and assessed during Budget Execution Phase and the Evaluation Phase. The Budget and Reporting (B&R) categories for the Engineering Campaign program are listed and linked to performance metrics. All direct and indirect costs to attain the performance results for the Engineering Campaign are reported in the B&R categories.

Evidence: The NNSA PPBE Guidance Documents (e.g., BOP 001.1 -001.4) and FY 2007 documents on the NNSA PPBE web site; President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; NNSA FY 2006 AFR, Jul 05; Administrator's Final Recommendations; and the Engineering Campaign Program Plan and subprogram Implementation Plans.

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

Explanation: NNSA Defense Program management has taken steps to adjust strategic planning to better meet stockpile stewardship needs and priorities. The DOE Strategic Goal and supporting performance goal and targets for the Engineering Campaign, improved based on independent feedback, have been defined in the FY 2006-2011 program plan and allocated to the sub-program implementation plans. Additionally, the Engineering Campaign is finalizing a Technology Roadmap to ensure a valid baseline and measurable targets.

Evidence: DOE Strategic Plan; NNSA Strategic Plan; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans, the NNSA PPBE documents located on the NNSA web-site; the draft charter of the Engineering Campaign Steering group; and the Technology Roadmap.

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and (if relevant) to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals?

Explanation: The Engineering Campaign does not compare nor assess the potential benefits of efforts to those of external programs since none share similar goals. However, under an agreement with the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) of the United Kingdom, some Engineering Campaign information and sub-program elements are shared with and compared to the AWE program (in a few cases). For example, the Enhanced Surveillance Sub-program holds annual meetings with the AWE (United Kingdom) to share results of technical efforts related to the aging of materials. Results from the Engineering Campaign are shared with DSW and the other campaigns, which depend on integration with the Engineering Campaign to achieve their goals.

Evidence: Joint Nuclear Weapons Life Cycle Management Process Memoranda of Understanding; FY 2006 Enhanced Surveillance Implementation Plan; PPBE process documents on the NNSA PPBE web site; Sandia Engineering Sciences Research Foundation (ESRF) Annual Review documentation; and DP QPR briefings.

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

Explanation: All prioritization is done in accordance with the annually published Defense Programs Planning Guidance and the NNSA PPBE process. Engineering Campaign projects are prioritized at many levels, starting at the highest level of NNSA with priorities summarized in the annual Administrator's Final Recommendation (AFR). Priorities for the Engineering Campaign are developed and competed across the weapons complex during an annual budget review and are reflected in the specific Campaign milestones, and are consistent with the programmatic scope defined in the AFR. Site specific processes are used by managers at the site level to prioritize work, develop implementation plans, and accomplish the Campaign's milestones within the budget provided.

Evidence: The NNSA PPBE documents located on the NNSA web-site; FY 2007 NNSA Planning Guidance; FY 2006-2010 Defense Programs Planning Guidance; FY 2007-2011 AFR (NNSA); Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans; and site task plans.

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: Monthly program reviews monitor progress. Earned value data is collected and monitored by the program on a monthly basis. Quarterly milestone progress is monitored through the Defense Programs Milestone Reporting Tool (MRT) and reported to DP in Quarterly Program Reviews (QPRs). Progress against annual performance measures is reported quarterly to DP, NNSA, and DOE in Joule reports for Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) purposes. Change control procedures are in place. Data is also provided in annual and quarterly reports to Congress. Annual Program Reviews, conducted for the NNSA Administrator, include performance and cost data.

Evidence: QPR briefing data; Program milestone status in the DP MRT; Quarterly Joule reports; DOE PAR; NNSA Performance Report; annual and quarterly reports to Congress; Program Management Manual; and DOE Order 413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.

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: The performance evaluations for Federal managers include measures and criteria that hold them accountable for program results and effective management. The contractors and other grantees are held accountable for accomplishing program deliverables on time and within budget. Contractor performance and awards basis are tied to meeting deliverables. Quarterly, mid-year and annual reviews are held and tracked with implementation plans.

Evidence: WA and AFP files; Federal Program Manager performance plans; site performance evaluation plans; site performance evaluations; and financial obligation and spending reports.

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

Explanation: Funding is allocated at the start of the year and as needed via the DOE/NNSA Approved Funding Program and matched to work requirements in Implementation Plans via WAs. Expenditures by the site M&O contractors are tracked monthly and carryover expenses are carefully managed through the DOE financial reporting system. Program carryover is typically held to a maximum of 10-15%.

Evidence: AFP and WA files; monthly DOE financial data warehouse reports; year-end spending reports; and Federal audit clearinghouse.

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: The MESA project follows DOE policy and procedures for competition and cost effectiveness. The four individual Engineering Campaign Sub-programs have implementation plans and site task plans that include targets and schedules to be achieved at target funding levels. To meet these targets in the most efficient manner, the contractor sites must follow DOE orders for competitive sourcing and cost comparisons in the acquisition of capital assets required to execute the program. Measuring the resulting efficiencies is difficult due to the uniqueness and continual evolution of nuclear weapon R&D, but the Engineering Campaign program conducts quarterly reviews to monitor the funds spent against the work performed and implements corrective actions as necessary.

Evidence: Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans; DP QPR briefings; and DOE Order 413.3 and DOE M 413.3-1, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Engineering Campaign integrates efforts with DSW, all other campaigns, and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF). The Engineering Campaign receives inputs from and delivers outputs to these other program elements. The NNSA PPBE process facilitates this integration of activity prior to and throughout each annual Planning, Programming, and Budgeting phase. Annual program and implementation plans for each DP element document the integration with other programs. During PPBE Budget Execution, means for integrating activities include regular meetings attended by related program representatives. Additionally, the DP QPRs review cost and milestone status for all DP programs, including the Engineering Campaign, to ensure coordination is occurring between interdependent programs. The LEPs (in accordance with DoD schedule requirements) for weapon systems also track the progress of critical projects across DSW, all of the Campaigns, and RTBF to reduce program risk.

Evidence: NNSA PPBE documents on the NNSA web site; NNSA Strategic Plan; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans; DP QPR briefings; Joint Annual ASC Verification and Validation (V&V) and Weapons System Engineering Assessment Technology reviews at Sandia; campaign meeting notes; and NNSA PPBE documents on the NNSA web site.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Engineering Campaign program is covered by DOE's financial management policies, procedures, and practices that meet all statutory requirements. DOE provides the accounting services for NNSA and the financial management processes are free of material internal control weaknesses. The Budget and Program staff review cost expenditure reports on a monthly basis to monitor obligations and costs for all projects and sites.

Evidence: DOE Financial Management Orders; NNSA PPBE documents on the NNSA web site; and DOE financial data warehouse reports.

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

Explanation: The integration of four individual "Campaigns" into a single Engineering Campaign was intended, in part, to streamline management and coordination. The comprehensive Engineering Campaign Program Plan for FY 2005-2010 integrating the strategic goals and activities for all advanced engineering R&D within DP was a major step forward in more effective campaign management structure. The development of the Technology Roadmap integrated and defined the specific technical objectives for all four sub-programs. The formation of an Engineering Campaign Steering Group has improved management effectiveness and is being used to reinforce the Campaign's management objectives. Better alignment with the PPBE process and implementation of improved change control in conjunction with the recently issued DP Program Management Manual have strengthened management of the Campaign. A systems engineering approach is being used to implement tools and improvements for more effective management.

Evidence: FY 2005-2010 Engineering Campaign Program Plan, Jan 05; Engineering Campaign Steering Group Charter; NA-10 Defense Programs Program Management Manual, May 05; and NNSA PPBE Guidance Documents (e.g., BOP 001.1 - 001.4).

For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain program quality?

Explanation: The recent M&O contractor change in the management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Nevada Test Site and the initiation of the process to find a new manager of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory strongly demonstrate the DP commitment to maintaining excellence in its M&O contractors. The Federal and site managers develop and agree to an implementation plan and sub-program milestones, and the Federal managers conduct reviews and evaluate site performance to determine the effectiveness of the site in meeting sub-program goals. Formal site contractor performance assessments are conducted annually and program management input is a critical part of the review process.

Evidence: Defense Programs Priorities (as contained in Defense Programs FY 2008-2012 Program & Resource Guidance; Stockpile Stewardship Plan; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans; FY 2006 Work Authorizations; FY 2006 site M&O contractor Performance Evaluation Plans; DP QPR presentations; DP MRT milestones and summaries; Annual Program Reviews and Reports; and national laboratories and plant assessments.

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

Explanation: The Campaign accomplished its annual targets for FY 2003 to FY 2005 and is on track to achieve its long term performance goals. The Enhanced Surety Sub-program continues to make progress in providing advanced initiation options for weapons as well as incorporating new technology into other aspects of weapon surety as noted in the surety features of the new RRW designs. The Weapons System Engineering Assessment Technology Sub-program has provided a large amount of test data to support component and system-level qualification via model-based engineering. Advanced technology for radiation-hardened components has been produced by the Nuclear Survivability Sub-program effort as well as a better understanding of the effects of radiation on weapon performance. The aging data and predictive tools provided by the Enhanced Surveillance Sub-program have facilitated the annual assessment of the stockpile, improved stockpile surveillance, assisted LEP development and certification, and provided a planning basis for future pit manufacturing capabilities. Accomplishment of the long-term goals of the Campaign is limited mostly by available budget, and the Campaign management strives to maintain the long-term strategic approach necessary to achieve challenging R&D results within available cost and schedule. The funding restrictions for FY 2008 and the out-years caused the Campaign to revise the endpoints and out-year annual targets for two performance measures (lifetime assessments and nuclear survivability).

Evidence: President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans; annual program review presentations; DOE Performance and Accountability/Joule Reporting System; status of Engineering Campaign milestones in the DP MRT; Quarterly Program Review briefings and notes; annual reports; and contractor and site assessments.

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

Explanation: The Campaign's individual sub-programs have been successful in achieving the annual performance targets for FY 2003-2005 in the FYNSP, program plans, and contractor performance plans. The percentage of completed milestones is very high for the Campaign, and any failure to meet annual objectives has been generally due to budget fluctuations, mostly beyond the control of the performer.

Evidence: M&O contractor performance assessments; Engineering Campaign Program Plan; individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans; site task plans; DP QPR briefings; Engineering Campaign milestone status in the DP MRT; annual site reports; DOE PAR/Joule Reporting System; DOE IG/KPMG audit of Engineering Campaign Surveillance annual goal (FY 2004 & 2005) and Surety annual goal (FY 2005); and annual review presentations.

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

Explanation: The vast majority of the work in the Campaign is non-repetitive research and development through M&O contractors, for which improved efficiency is difficult to demonstrate. There is not an "out for low bid" option in the Nuclear Weapon Complex work environment for engineering services in support of nuclear weapon certification. The MESA construction project does use cost-effective measures and earned value management. In addition, the Campaign has been successful in achieving the annual performance targets and has been receiving improving technical merit reviews, the standard measure of efficiency for R&D activities. This success, in turn, has resulted in high overall ratings received by the M&O contractors in their annual performance assessment.

Evidence: Annual Review briefings and notes; DP QPR briefings and notes; M&O contractors' performance assessments; MESA project reports; and individual Engineering Campaign Sub-program Implementation Plans.

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

Explanation: The program performs well in its role to manage a diverse scientific and technology portfolio. Joint Working Groups (JOWOGs) of the United Kingdom's (U.K.'s) AWE are very structured chairman committees, which hold formal country reviews, that assess certain relative activities of the U.S. Engineering Campaign program. During past assessments, the U.S. R&D progress and status has consistently compared favorably to the U.K.'s counterparts. New capabilities and matured technologies developed and deployed under this program enabled successful W87 life extension 'refurbishment'. Similarly, both the B61 and the W76 are on track to deliver their respective 'first production unit' on schedule.

Evidence: The M&O contractors' performance assessments; annual site reports; JASON reviews; Nuclear Weapon Council reviews; Sandia Engineering Sciences Research Foundation (ESRF) Annual Review documentation; reports from external review panels; and Joint (U.K. - U.S.) Working Group proceedings and reports.

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

Explanation: Many independent reviews have given the Campaign high marks. For the Enhanced Surety Sub-program, the Defense Programs Surety Committee (DSC) comments on the effectiveness of its technology for improving weapon surety. For the Nuclear Survivability Sub-program, the Radiation Effects Sciences (RES) Program External Review Panel stated, "The overall quality of research appears excellent." The Enhanced Surveillance Sub-program recently received favorable external reviews of its non-nuclear components work and pit lifetime effort. The Engineering Campaign as a whole has not been reviewed by an external review panel due to the broad mission space, but most of the sub-programs of the Campaign have been favorably reviewed by external groups.

Evidence: Annual Independent Panel Reports, such as the ones done each year on the Enhanced Surveillance Campaign, Apr 05; Annual Joint Surety Report; Engineering Sciences Research Foundation review (Sandia, Aug 04); ASC Milepost Review (May 04); Radiation Effects Sciences Program External Review, May 06 ; JASON's Winter Study of Pit Lifetimes (Jan 05); ASC V&V Level 1 and Level 2 Milestone reviews, Jan 06 and Aug 06; DSC Quarterly Program Reviews; and reviews related to Joint (U.K. - U.S.) Working Group exchanges with the United Kingdom.