Detailed Information on the
National Nuclear Security Administration: Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities Assessment

Continue to improve the responsiveness of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure by coordinating program activity with the Complex Transformation Strategy Record of Decision, including transfer of Pit-related construction from the Pit Campaign to Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.

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

Continue to strengthen procedures to facilitate application of the program in a similar manner by site contractors at all eight nuclear weapons complex sites, including adoption of a common RTBF Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).

Measure: Enable NNSA missions by providing operational facilities to support nuclear weapon dismantlement, life extension, surveillance, and research & development activities, as measured by the percent of scheduled versus planned days mission-critical and mission-dependent facilities are available without missing key deliverables

Explanation:

Measure: In support of NNSA transformation goals to reduce the size of the nuclear weapons complex, prepare facilities for disposition, as measured by the annual square footage of facilities deactivated and decommissioned

Explanation:

Measure: Annual NNSA complex-wide aggregate Facility Condition Index (FCI), as measured by deferred maintenance costs per replacement plant value, for all mission-critical facilities and infrastructure

Explanation:

Measure: Annual NNSA complex-wide aggregate Facility Condition Index (FCI), as measured by deferred maintenance per replacement value, for all mission dependent, not critical facilities and infrastructure

Explanation:

Measure: Execute construction projects within approved costs and schedules, as measured by the total percentage of projects with total estimated cost (TEC) greater than $20M with a schedule performance index (ratio of actual work performed to scheduled work) and a cost performance index (ratio of actual cost of work performed to budgeted cost of work) between 0.9-1.15

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) Program's purpose is clear - operate and maintain the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) programmatic facilities in a safe, secure, reliable, and compliant condition. This includes facility operating and maintenance costs; environmental, safety and health costs; and planning, prioritizing, and constructing state-of-the-art facilities, infrastructure, and scientific tools that are not directly attributable to Directed Stockpile Work or a Campaign, within approved baseline cost and schedule.

Evidence: The Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 President's Budget and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) FY 2008-2012 Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), Feb 07; and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) NNSA FY 2007-2011 Stockpile Stewardship Plan (SSP) Overview, Nov 06; DOE Strategic Plan, Sep 06; NNSA Strategic Plan, Nov 04; and Office of Defense Programs (DP) Strategic Vision for 2030, Feb 05.

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

Explanation: The NNSA achieves its primary mission of ensuring the safety, security, and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile by using state-of-the-art Nuclear Weapons Complex facilities and infrastructure. The construction and ongoing operation of these facilities is essential for the success of the NNSA Stockpile Stewardship Program mission by supporting tests and assessments to certify the stockpile and produce parts to repair and improve the stockpile. The RTBF Program provides for these unique facilities and supports their ongoing operation to provide capabilities and critical skill sets in support of the statutory mission of the NNSA Office of Defense Programs. These programmatic facilities and capabilities are required to support nuclear weapons design, engineering, and evaluation.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; DOE Strategic Plan; NNSA Strategic Plan, Nov 04; Office of DP Strategic Vision for 2030; DOE NNSA FY 2007-2011 SSP Overview, Nov 06.

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

Explanation: This program is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, State, local, or private effort. This is the only program that provides the base level of resources for supporting the Nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. This includes facility construction and support personnel and money for facilities operation and maintenance. The breadth of these activities requires a federally-managed effort. Chronic under-funding of scheduled maintenance planned for the 1990s resulted in an excess of backlog of deferred maintenance. This condition led Congress to approve a new, limited duration appropriation in Fiscal Year 2002, the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program that is a separate, distinct, but complementary program with goals to reduce deferred maintenance levels and dispose of excess facilities, thus decreasing future maintenance costs.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; DOE NNSA FY 2007-2011 SSP Overview; current NNSA Budget and Reporting (B&R) Structure for RTBF; NNSA Strategic Plan; and program-related milestone status in DP Milestone Reporting Tool (MRT).

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 the DOE and NNSA. All activities and the schedule for their accomplishment are implemented through an integrated plan whose milestones and deliverables are monitored through periodic reviews and various reporting mechanisms. Risk analyses have been accomplished and mitigation efforts identified and implemented to ensure success.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; NA-10 DP Program Management Manual (PMM), Rev 1, Jan 05; FY 2007 RTBF Implementation Plan (IP); FY 2007 RTBF Site Execution Plans (SEPs) (8 sites); Integrated Construction Program Plan (ICPP), Mar 07; and Project-Specific Project Execution and Risk Management Plans.

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

Explanation: The RTBF Program and supporting Management & Operating contractors negotiate performance measures and supporting milestones. RTBF Program Execution guidance requires federal personnel conduct periodic written reports and onsite reviews of contractors with the objective of making appropriate and timely adjustments to improve program performance. The Integrated Construction Program Plan identifies a portfolio of construction projects around the complex on a priority basis, coordinated with the Stockpile Stewardship programs who require the facilities. Annually, the RTBF Program uses the NNSA Work Authorization and Approved Funding Program processes and separate and specific Budget and Reporting categories to ensure the effective and direct targeting of funds to facilities for construction or specific work defined in program execution guidance. Construction project plans and site-level RTBF execution plans are sufficiently detailed as to demonstrate the effective targeting of program funding to its beneficiaries for its intended purpose through using work breakdown structures to define activities and to assign resources.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; FY 2007 DOE/NNSA B&R Structure for RTBF; FY 2007 RTBF IP; FY 2007 RTBF SEP Guidance; FY 2007 RTBF SEPs (8 sites); FY 2007 M&O Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans (PEPs); ICPP; RTBF FY 2007 & FY 2008 Work Authorization (WA) files; FY 2007 & FY 2008 Approved Funding Program (AFP) files; and DOE/NNSA FY 2007 Integrated Management Navigation System (I-MANAGE) Data Warehouse (IDW) and DOE Standard Accounting and Reporting System (STARS) financial reports

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 program has five long-term measures to meaningfully determine progress. These are: 1) To enable NNSA missions by providing operational facilities to support nuclear weapon dismantlement, refurbishment, surveillance, and research & development activities, annually ensure that mission critical and mission dependent facilities are available at least 95% of scheduled days without missing key deliverables; 2) In supprt of NNSA transformation gopals to reduce the size of the nuclear weapons complex, by 2011,annually deactivate and decommission 300,00 square footage of facilities for disposition; 3) By 2008, attain a Facility Condition Index of 5% of mission essential facilities and infrastructure, as measured by deferred maintenance costs per replacement plant value; 4) By 2013, attain a Facility Condition Index of 7% of mission dependent not critical facilities and infrastructure, as measured by deferred maintenance costs per replacement plant value; and 5) By 2009, execute construction projects within approved costs and schedules, as measured by 90% of baselined construction projects greater than $20 million having a schedule performance index (ratio of budgeted cost of worked performed to budgeted cost of work scheduled) and a cost performance index (ratio of budgeted cost of work performed to actual cost of work performed) between 0.9 -1.15.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; FY 2007 RTBF IP; FY 2007 RTBF Site Execution Plan (SEP) Guidance; and quarterly DOE Joule Performance Reports. Also see Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) measures tab.

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

Explanation: Specific quantifiable annual targets have been developed for the long-term measures (the FY 2009 targets are discussed in 2.3). Each measure has a specific, quantifiable endpoint target. The measures and targets are the best indicators of program success. Both the long-term measures and targets are extremely ambitious. However, comprehensive planning and reviews, as well as progress to date, indicate that they are realistic and achievable. Exceeding industry standards is always challenging. After years of under-funding facilities during the 1990s and recent construction funding reductions, it is especially challenging to construct facilities, prepare excess space for disposition, and improve facility conditions while maintaining the facility availability with modest Future Years Nuclear Security Program profile growth. It is equally challenging to begin the modification process that will lead to a responsive infrastructure in support of the current NNSA transformation concept.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; FY 2007 RTBF IP; DOE Strategic Plan; DOE NNSA FY 2007-2011 SSP Overview; and Office of Defense Programs Complex 2030 Concept, Oct 06. Also see PART Measures Tab.

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 program has five annual measures to meaningfully assess progress. Each is discrete, quantifiable, and measurable. As a group, they support the long-term measures discussed in 2.1. One is an efficiency measure that tracks achievement of the cost, scope, schedule, and performance goals of facility acquisition. For FY 2009, they are: 1) Ensure mission critical and mission dependent facilities are available at least 95% of scheduled days without missing key deliverables; 2) Deactivate and decommission 200,000 square footage of facilities for disposition; 3) Attain a Facility Condition Index of 5% for mission critical faculties; 4) Attain a Facility Condition Index of 8% for mission dependent, not critical facilities; and 5) Manage at least 90% of the baselined construction projects with total estimated costs greater than $20 million with an actual total percentage of projects with a schedule performance index (ratio of budgeted cost of worked performed to budgeted cost of work scheduled) and a cost performance index (ratio of budgeted cost of work performed to actual cost of work performed) between 0.9 -1.15.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; FY 2007 RTBF IP; DOE Joule Reports; ICPP; and RTBF Milestone Status in the DP MRT. For additional year targets, please see PART Measures Tab.

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

Explanation: The RTBF Program has established baselines for its annual measures. Four years of data was used to baseline the facility availability and reportable accidents measures. The facility disposition measure is new for FY 2008, but was developed utilizing data from Ten-Year Site Plans. The NNSA used FY 2004 data to establish the baseline for the Facility Condition Index metric and, because of changes in facility definitions, in 2008, will apply the metric to both mission dependent and mission critical facilities. RTBF Construction baseline data has been collected for FY 2002-2006 and the Integrated Construction Program Plan has been consistently updated. Annual targets are adjusted based on successful prior year performance to maintain challenging program targets.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; FY 2007 RTBF IP; DOE Joule Reports; ICPP; and RTBF Milestone Status in the DP MRT.

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: The prior Office of Management and Budget Performance Rating Assessment Tool review recommended a comprehensive review of the RTBF program. Federal personnel and the Management and Operating Contractors work together to establish aggressive and achievable project budgets and milestones to accomplish baseline deliverables. Performance targets are incorporated into the individual performance plans of federal personnel as well as annual Management & Operating Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans which is the main tool for providing awards.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; FY 2007 RTBF IP; FY 2007 RTBF SEPs (8 sites); Individual Federal Personnel Measures of Performance (MOPs) and Evaluations; and FY 2006 and FY 2007 Management & Operating (M&O) Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans and FY 2006 Evaluations.

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: In 2005, the NNSA hired an independent contractor to review the operations portion of RTBF at all eight sites related to scope, management, planning, and execution. This review resulted in suggested improvements in standardization and best practices across the complex. Additionally, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board completed a comprehensive review of the Nuclear Weapons Complex in 2005. This review identified options for consolidating and transforming the Nuclear Weapons Complex to better meet future stockpile requirements.

Evidence: Independent Contractor/Project Time and Cost (PT&C) Reports; Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB), Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure Task, Jul 05; SEAB, Recommendations for the Nuclear Weapons Complex of the Future, Jul 05; and DP Office of Transformation, Transformation Strategy Implementation Plan, Dec 06, and associated actions.

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 DOE and NNSA Strategic Plans, and link to supporting milestones, deliverables, and the budgets for program performers. The NNSA program performance goals are the framework for resource allocation decisions made in the annual Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process. Annually, the NNSA performance-planning-budgeting decisions are documented in the Administrator's Final Recommendation and used to develop the budget requests during the Budgeting Phase. Program and financial performance for each measure is corporately monitored and assessed during Budget Execution and the Evaluation Phase. The RTBF Budget and Reporting categories are listed and linked to performance measures. In the FY 2005 President's Budget, NNSA initiated a budget request format that includes the current 3 years plus 4 additional years of performance and budget information for each program in the budget justification document.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; NNSA Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation (PPBE) guidance documents located on the NNSA Website; DOE Strategic Plan; NNSA Strategic Plan; FY 2007 RTBF IP; FY 2004 and FY 2005 NNSA Program Decision Memoranda, and FY 2006, FY 2007, and FY 2008 Administrator's Final Recommendation.

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

Explanation: The RTBF Program is implementing the recommendations identified in the 2005 External Review. The program has implemented a common RTBF Work Breakdown Structure across the eight sites to standardize reporting and measure progress. Additionally, 15 mission critical facilities were reviewed to better understand baseline operating costs. The RTBF program revised its program implementation plan to meet the Defense Programs Program Management Manual, recasting its facilities mission dependency classification to demonstrate better alignment to program requirements. In 2007, RTBF prioritized and funded selected projects that will consolidate program activities, reduce program footprint, and refurbish scientific process equipment as needed to support priority program work.

Evidence: FY 2007 RTBF IP; current RTBF SEPs (8 sites); PT&C Reports; RTBF Mission Critical List and Database, Aug 06; RTBF Work Breakdown Structure (WBS); RTBF WBS Dictionary; DP RTBF Change Control Process for the Mission Critical Facilities List; DP Office of Transformation, Transformation Strategy Implementation Plan, Dec 06, and associated actions.

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 program conducts alternative analyses for activities. This is done annually in executing the Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation phases. Analysis and evaluation results from the recently completed RTBF External Review are used to improve RTBF Program management activities, such as developing facility cost baselines for select mission critical facilities to support future budget requests. Additionally, the program conducts conceptual planning activities for construction projects and documents all alternative analyses and value engineering for each proposed project prior to receiving capital funds. Each alternative's cost, schedule, scope, and risk are documented in the Conceptual Design Report. Acquisition alternatives and trade-offs are documented in each project's Acquisition Strategy Plan.

Evidence: NNSA Model for Improving Management and Performance, Feb 03; DOE Activities Relating to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) 2004 Annual Report to Congress, Feb 04; NNSA PPBE documents on the NNSA web site; DOE Order 413.1A, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets; RTBF IP; ICPP; PT&C Reports; and RTBF WBS and WBS Dictionary.

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 for construction projects. Quarterly milestone progress and budget execution data are monitored through the Defense Programs Milestone Reporting Tool and reported to senior management during Quarterly Program Reviews. Progress against annual performance measures is reported quarterly to management in Joule reports for Performance and Accountability Report purposes. NNSA utilizes a Critical Decision process for Line Item construction projects to validate planned versus actual progress prior to authorizing the next phase of work. Change control procedures are in place. Annual program reviews, conducted for the NNSA Administrator, include discussion of performance and cost data.

Evidence: Quarterly Program Review (QPR) Briefing Data; Program Milestone Status in the DP MRT; Quarterly Joule Reports; DOE Project Analysis and Reporting System (PARS); DOE annual Performance and Accountability Reports (PARs); Annual NNSA Performance Reports; Annual and Quarterly Reports to Congress; and DP Program Management Manual (PMM), Rev 1, Jan 05.

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 progress of the Management & Operating contractors is evaluated on a monthly basis and program performance is used as a basis for determining fees and performance based incentives. Federal personnel are also evaluated based on program performance.

Evidence: FY 2007 RTBF IP; current SEPs (8 sites); Individual Federal Personnel MOPs and Evaluations; and FY 2006 and FY 2007 M&O Contractor PEPs and FY 2006 Evaluations.

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 Work Authorizations. Expenditures 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: Program-related AFP anmd WA files; monthly DOE/NNSA I-MANAGE Data WArehouse STARS Financial Reports; and Year-End Spending Reports.

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: RTBF construction projects are developed and implemented in accordance with DOE policy that mandates an acquisition strategy for each project. Most projects are acquired through competitive bid contracting strategy and awarded as "firm-fixed price" contracts that include Earned Value Management requirements. In many cases, the contract contains cost saving and sharing clauses. The remainder of the program follows Departmental procedures and processes to measure cost reductions. These requirements are contained in Management & Operating contractor site performance contracts and performance evaluation plans. The NNSA uses award and incentive fees to foster cost reduction at all sites.

Evidence: DOE O 413.3A; M&O contractor Performance Contracts and Evaluation Plans (8 sites); DOE PARS; DOE Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) 970.5204-87, Cost Reduction, Apr 99; and Program Review Briefings/Notes.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process imposes coordination across all of Defense Programs annually during the Planning and Programming Phases. RTBF works closely with managers of other NNSA departments to ensure that program facilities and infrastructure remain able to support current and future mission workloads. Programs determine mission dependency classification for facilities managed by RTBF. RTBF maintains a database that contains linkages between facilities and programs. During development of the Ten Year Site Plans, program managers provide review and comments on program-related information proposed by site contractors. The RTBF construction management effort is further coordinated across other major NNSA programs to ensure proper prioritization and cost efficiency.

Evidence: FY 2007 RTBF IP; FY 2007 RTBF SEPs (8 sites); NNSA FY 2007 Ten Year Site Plans (8 sites); FY 2007 RTBF IP; and Mission Critical Database and FY 2007 Mission Critical List, Rev. 0 Memorandum, Aug 06.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The 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 Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation (PPBE) documents on the NNSA website; and DOE/NNSA IDW STARS financial reports.

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

Explanation: The NNSA has taken several actions to enhance management visibility into the program. Recommended improvements identified in the 2005 External Review are being implemented such as a National RTBF Work Breakdown Structure to improve uniformity of RTBF activities (completed in FY 2007), new performance measures, and cost baselines at select mission-critical facilities. In FY 2006, the NNSA reorganized its federal workforce to improve performance and results, streamlining RTBF operations and oversight while clarifying roles and responsibilities. The program also prioritized facilities into new facility dependency categories to establish stronger linkages to programs by aligning future facilities investment decisions with known program priorities. In FY 2007, RTBF provided infrastructure support resources to prioritize and fund selected projects that will consolidate program activities, reduce program footprint, and refurbish scientific process equipment as needed to support priority program work.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; RTBF Milestone Status in the DP MRT; FY 2007 RTBF IP; FY 2007 RTBF SEP Guidance; Mission Critical List/Database; TYSPs; and Project Time and Cost Reports.

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

Explanation: The annual coordination requirements of the NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process maintain the RTBF focus on the needs of the supported programs. Detailed construction Critical Decision points and operations milestones are incorporated into program planning and are reported on at Quarterly Program Reviews to senior management, other programs, and site representatives. Work Authorizations summarize the program's specific deliverables, by site, while construction project plans and RTBF operations site execution plans define more specific performance measures on a sub-element site basis. The individual site execution plans contain the cost, schedule, and performance goals for the program for each site. Each construction project plan contains an Earned Value Management process for tracking monthly expenditures against the established cost, scope, and schedule baseline.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; NNSA PPBE documents on the NNSA Website; RTBF Milestone Status in the DP MRT; RTBF-related QPR briefings; Individual Project Plans; Monthly Project Earned Value Management System (EVMS) reports; and FY 2006 RTBF SEPs (8 sites).

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

Explanation: Through the attainment of its annual targets and supporting milestones, the RTBF Program has demonstrated a capability to reach its long-term performance goals. The program has achieved positive trends in meeting mission-essential facility availability and reportable accidents. From FY 2001-2006, improvements can be found in facility availability from 94% to 98%. Based on this historical data, the facility availability annual target is being raised from 90% to 95% in FY 2008. Because the reportable accidents measure (former goal) was consistently met and was not comprehensive of the scope of RTBF activities, the program is implementing a new measure focused on preparing space for disposition, consistent with complex transformation goals. The Facility Condition Index target is very challenging, but site trends are consistent with funding reductions. From FY 2001-2006, the Facility Condition Index results improved from 7.2% to 6.7%. For FY 2008, RTBF and the Facilities Infrastructure and Recapitalization Program are enhancing the Facility Condition Index measure based on mission dependency categories. Construction efforts are generally on track, except for some projects with unique challenges such as the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility which faced complex designs and changing requirements. While the fairly new measure shows the program is on track, additional performance data is needed to establish long-term trends. Priority changes and resource availability have required some project rebaselining.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; DP Strategic Vision for 2030; FY 2007 RTBF) Program IP; FY 2007 TYSPs (8 sites); RTBF Milestone Status in DP MRT; ICPP; and Individual Construction Project Plans. Also, see PART Measures tab for annual progress.

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

Explanation: The program has consistently achieved its annual performance goals. For facility availability, given that no milestones were missed, the program has extrapolated and reported annual performance against the 90% goal for FY 2006 at 98.1%. For reportable accidents (prior measure), the aggregate Bureau of Labor-reported accident rate average for all eight sites has been significantly better than the national average of 5.0 per 200,000 work hours for FY 2006 at 1.8. (The national target changed from 6.4 per 200,000 in FY 2006.) In FY 2008, the reportable accidents measure will be replaced by the facility disposition measure. For FY 2006, a Facility Condition Index of 6.7% was achieved against a goal of 7.4%. For FY 2006, for construction, the program achieved 90% against a goal of 75%. The program appears to be on track to meet or exceed the FY 2007 annual targets; however, selected line item projects have experienced difficulties. Construction difficulties are typified by the Highly Enriched Uranium Materials Facility project which required additional funding and time due to a combination of an inadequate appreciation of local business conditions, an inexperienced federal and contractor project team, design changes made after construction had started, and inadequate quality assurance.

Evidence: President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; FY 2007 RTBF IP; RTBF Quarterly Reports and/or Program Reviews (8 sites); Joule Reports; DOE Project Analysis and Reporting System (PARS); DOE Computerized Accident/Incident Reporting System (CAIRS) database; RTBF site program reviews; monthly project EVMS reports. Also, see PART measures tab for annual target results.

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

Explanation: The RTBF Program has limited evidence to compare performance against other programs. Site-wide safety records are significantly better than national standards, indicating favorable performance. Facility Condition Index and construction compare favorably within DOE, but less favorably as compared to other federal agencies and private industries.

Evidence: RTBF Quarterly Reports and/or Program Reviews (8 sites); DOE Occupational Injury and Property Damage Summary, Calendar Years 2001-2005; DOE CAIRS database; individual project design and construction specifications and design criteria; DOE PARS; EVMS Reports; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) facility maintainability data; and Construction Industry Institute's standard specifications.

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

Explanation: The RTBF Program has limited evidence to compare performance against other programs. Site-wide safety records are significantly better than national standards, indicating favorable performance. The Facility Condition Index and construction results compare favorably within DOE, but less favorably as compared to other federal agencies and private industries.

Evidence: RTBF Quarterly Reports and/or Program Reviews (8 sites); DOE Occupational Injury and Property Damage Summary, Calendar Years 2001-2005; DOE CAIRS database; individual project design and construction specifications and design criteria; DOE PARS; EVMS Reports; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) facility maintainability data; and Construction Industry Institute's standard specifications.

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

Explanation: The 2005 External Review of RTBF operations was an independent evaluation of sufficient scope and quality. As a result of this review, NNSA management evaluated recommendations and developed a path forward to improve program management. The program has implemented a program-wide/National Work Breakdown Structure to standardize reporting. The RTBF program is also developing cost baselines at select mission critical facilities, recasting facilities mission dependency classification to better align with program requirements, implementing multi-site measures, and improving overall documentation. Construction performance measures are assessed/monitored by NNSA and DOE. FY 2007 is the first full-cycle period for adopting these measures and the program will continue to monitor progress against long-term objectives.

Evidence: Project Time and Cost (PT&C) reviews; DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) Evaluations; DOE PARS reports; DOE IG Audits of performance measures; and NNSA Office of Project Management and System Support Reviews.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Since program inception in 2000, the program has operated within budget to meet all program goals and supporting milestones. In FY 2007, the program is reviewing actual costs against planned program costs, and program goals are being achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules. However, some reprogramming does occur during the fiscal year. This is usually due to schedules and priority changes.

Evidence: RTBF FY 2007 IP; RTBF Quarterly reports and/or Program Reviews (8 sites); FY 2007 RTBF SEP Guidance; Site M&O contracts and performance assessments; AFP and WA files; DOE PARS reports; and monthly DOE IDW STARS financial reports.