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

Investigating performance measures that better assess the program's impact on reducing cycle times and lowering operating costs in the National Nuclear Security Administration's nuclear weapons complex.

Improving the coordination of priorities and initiatives across multiple National Nuclear Security Administration programs--especially the six NNSA campaigns.

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 program requirements into development of the new Office of Defense Programs National Level Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) plan.

Measure: Cumulative number of critical immediate and urgent capabilities deployed to support our Directed Stockpile Work (DSW) customer's nuclear weapon refurbishment needs derived from the Production Readiness Assessment Plan

Explanation:

Measure: The number of capabilities deployed every other year to stockpile programs that will reduce cycle times at least by 35% (against baselined agility and efficiency)

Explanation:

Measure: Cumulative number of Tritium-Producing Burnable Absorber Rods (TPBARs) irradiated in Tennessee Valley Authority reactors to provide the capability of collecting new tritium to replace inventory for the nuclear weapons stockpile

Explanation:

Measure: Cumulative percentage of Tritium Extraction Facility (TEF) project completed (total project cost), while maintaining a Cost Performance Index (CPI) of 0.9-1.15

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Readiness Campaign is to identify, develop and provide new or enhanced processes, technologies, and capabilities to meet current and future nuclear weapon design and production needs. The Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is responsible for enhancing U.S. national security through the military application of nuclear technology.

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget Request and NNSA Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP); Public Law 106-65; Public Law 103-160; DOE Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program 2004; Current Readiness Campaign Program and Implementation Plans; annual authorization appropriation hearings; NNSA Administrator & Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Congressional testimony; IDA 120-Day Study; ongoing responsiveness initiative; and Readiness Campaign Level 1 & 2 milestones in the Office of Defense Programs (DP) Milestone Reporting Tool (MRT).

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

Explanation: The day-to-day maintenance of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the Life Extension Programs (LEPs) require the capability to manufacture, inspect, and requalify nuclear weapon components, and to assemble and disassemble nuclear weapons. The Readiness Campaign has the responsibility for developing new or reestablishing old design to production processes and technologies for assuring the ability to refurbish the enduring stockpile and meet emerging national security threats.

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; DOE Strategic Plan, Sep 03; NNSA Strategic Plan, Nov 04; DP Strategic Vision for 2030, Feb 05; Production Readiness Assessments; Production & Planning Directive (P&PD); Program Control Documents (PCDs); LEP Plans; FY 2006-2011 Readiness Campaign Program Plan; individual FY 2006 Readiness Campaign Implementation Plans; Chiles Commission reports; and priorities on Responsive Infrastructure

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

Explanation: Nuclear weapons are the sole province of the Federal Government, and the NNSA is the federal agency responsible for the safety, security, and reliability of the stockpile. There is no private, local, or state effort in the area of nuclear weapons. The FY 1994 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Energy to "establish a stewardship program to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons." The Readiness Campaign is an essential component of the Stockpile Stewardship Program that provides design to production technologies necessary to address gaps and evolving needs in stockpile production and life extension programs.

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act; legislation establishing the NNSA; NNSA Administrator & Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs Congressional testimony; Chiles Commission reports; IDA 120-Day Study; the ongoing DOE/NNSA Responsive Infrastructure priority, Readiness Campaign Program Plan, and associated Readiness Campaign Implementation Plans.

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

Explanation: Initially, responsibility for Readiness Campaign activities was distributed among three different organizations resulting in sub-optimal integration, priority setting, and program management. This flaw was recognized and corrected by establishing the Office of Stockpile Technology in FY 2002 to better integrate Readiness Campaign activities. Today, Advanced Design and Production Technologies, High Explosives and Weapon Operations, Nonnuclear Readiness, Stockpile Readiness, and Tritium Readiness Sub-Programs are all in this organization. These sub-programs cover technology provision from development and prototype through the deployment of a "turn-key" capability to other programs for use and maintenance.

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; and individual Readiness Campaign Implementation Plans.

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 enables integration of all programs annually during the Planning and Programming phases to assist in prioritized program application of resources. The Readiness Campaign allocates funds to each of its five sub-programs based on an integrated prioritization of customer-driven requirements. The program aligns investments with the actual needs of the intended beneficiaries, and then uses the DOE/NNSA Work Authorization and Approved Funding Program processes and separate and specific Budget and Reporting codes to ensure the effective and direct targeting of funds to M&O contractors to perform specific work as detailed in program execution guidance. The work authorizations link program plan requirements for cost, scope, and schedule with individual site performance and contracts.

Evidence: Defense Programs Priorities for FY 2006-2011; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; individual Readiness Campaign Implementation Plans; Readiness Campaign accomplishments; current Readiness Campaign milestones in the DP MRT; evidence of effective implementation of program plan (plan deliverables largely provided), documented in program reviews and other program documentation; program plan evaluation; Management and Operating (M&O) Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans; Applied Technology Roadmap; Applied Engineering, Testing, and Manufacturing Capabilities catalog; Integrated Priority Lists, and project data sheets.

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 a limited number of long-term measures to meaningfully address progress in achieving the program purpose. They are: (1) By 2011, deploy 31 planned critical capabilities to support DSW, including LEP, deliverables; (2) By 2011, deploy 5 new or enhanced capabilities with demonstrated cycle time reduction of 35%; (3) By 2011, complete irradiation of 1200 Tritium-Producing Burnable Rods to provide tritium for nuclear weapons (4) By 2007, complete 100% of Tritium Extraction Project, while maintaining a Cost Performance Index of 0.9-1.15. These long-term measures directly support current Defense Priorities and flow down from the overall DOE and NNSA Goals and strategic planning to the Readiness Campaign Goal: Deliver design, engineering, and manufacturing capabilities to meet the evolving needs of the stockpile and to support the transformation of the nuclear weapon complex into an agile enterprise. They have been incorporated into all program-related NNSA documentation and program and implementation planning support their accomplishment with milestones. "

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; DOE Strategic Plan; NNSA Strategic Plan; DP Strategic Vision for 2030; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; individual Readiness Campaign Implementation Plans; campaign milestones in the DP MRT; M&O Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans; and the DP Contractor Performance Evaluation Tool (CPET).

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

Explanation: The long term measures and time frames are very ambitious, but achievable within the target timeframes. A portion of the Readiness Campaign invests in high risk/high payoff technologies, processes, materials, and knowledge management that directly supports prioritized requirements of the Stockpile Stewardship Program. It is a significant challenge to demonstrate, develop, and deploy the wide range of production technologies needed by Directed Stockpile Work and Requirements in Technical Base and Facilities programs and the Science and Engineering Campaigns .

Evidence: Various program plans within the Stockpile Stewardship Program; Congressional testimony; NNSA FYNSP; and performance measures in the Readiness Campaign Program Plan.

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 a limited number of specific annual measures to meaningfully assess progress in achieving the program's long-term measures. For FY 2007, they are: (1) Deploy 5 more (total of 20) of 31 critical capabilities to support the immediate and urgent needs Directed Stockpile Work; (2) Deploy 1 capability for the stockpile that will reduce baselined cycle times by 35%; (3) Irradiate 240 (for a total of 480) TPBARs in TVA reactors; and (4) Complete 100% of the Tritium Extraction Project (TEF), while maintaining a Cost Performance Index of 0.9-1.15. For additional year targets, please see PART Measures Tab. Annual performance measures provide a pathway to accomplishment of the long-term targets for efficiencies, cost savings, and responsiveness of the manufacturing infrastructure of NNSA. Each Readiness Campaign sub-program has established specific and ambitious internal performance measures to track progress to the program goal. Schedules contain detailed milestones that support tracking accomplishment of the annual and long-term measures. These measures are documented in the FYNSP, Readiness Campaign Program Plan, and subprogram Implementation Plans, and incorporated into M&O Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans."

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; individual Readiness Campaign Implementation Plans, especially those portions that address the budget year; annual performance evaluation of tritium commercial contractors; M&O Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans; and DP CPET.

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

Explanation: Baselines and ambitious targets, including internal targets (program milestone and project baselines) that support baselines of other programs (for example, Directed Stockpile Work) have been set in the Readiness Campaign Program Plan, Work Authorizations, and M&O Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans.

Evidence: NNSA FYNSP; M&O Contractor PEPs; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; and individual Readiness Campaign Implementation Plans, especially those portions that address the budget execution year.

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 NNSA PPBE process enables coordination across all programs. In addition, Readiness Campaign program management works with other Federal program managers (for example, weapon program and construction managers), Site Office staff, and site M&O Contractors to develop and reach consensus on annual and long-term performance measures, which are documented in the FYNSP and program plans. All Federal program managers and involved M&O Contractors are committed to executing and achieving the Readiness Campaign goals and objectives and performance measures are integrated into their annual evaluations. The commitment of these partners is evidenced by the Readiness Campaign continuing ability to achieve key programmatic milestones. The Readiness Campaign establishes project priorities with all partners' participation.

Evidence: NNSA PPBE documentation on the NNSA web site; Executed Work Authorizations; NNSA FYNSP; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; individual Readiness Campaign Implementation Plans; current DSW and RTBF Program Plans; and Readiness Campaign Integrated Priority List.

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: "Independent reviews of Stockpile Stewardship Program (including the Readiness Campaign) were performed by the Chiles Commission and the Foster Panel. In addition, the Tritium Readiness sub-program has periodic reviews conducted by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and Tennessee Valley Authority to ensure sub-program meets Nuclear Regulatory Commission requirements. Some elements of the Tritium Readiness effort have had independent reviews by DOE financial auditors, independent cost estimators, the Corps of Engineers, and various headquarters-appointed ad hoc ""Red Teams."" The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board has reviewed the design and progress of the Tritium Extraction Facility project, and the Board also reviews the processes and products from the High Explosives and Weapon Operations sub-program before they are used for nuclear operations. The DOE Inspector General has reviewed the High Explosives and Weapon Operations sub-program, and is currently auditing the Advance Design and Production Technologies sub-program. Sandia National Laboratories also provides an integrated, independent review of Readiness Campaign projects and validation against customer requirements."

Evidence: Formal review documentation located in program managers' and subprogram managers' files; FY 2003 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, April 11, 2003 (Foster Panel); Chiles Commission report; and Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) and TVA Quality review files--see Independent review list (OIG) maintained in NA-123 Office files and DOE IG audit--Job Code A04LL017; and Sandia WCI 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: "The program performance measures are the framework for resource allocation decisions made in the annual NNSA PPBE process. The program's budget request is explicitly tied to the accomplishment of its annual targets and long-term goal. The long-term goal is linked to the annual targets that cascade into detailed technical milestones and baselines. Resource trade-offs are evaluated based on their impact on the goal and targets. These performance-based budgeting decisions are used to develop budget requests, thus allowing resource needs to be presented in a complete and transparent manner. In addition, the program has its own Budget and Reporting structure to track resource expenditures independently. During budget execution, program and financial performance can be corporately monitored and assessed to allow results to influence budget requests. The cost for the NNSA Federal employees is carried in a separate NNSA program direction account, as required by the Congress. Readiness Campaign performance measures tie to customer needs, which set milestones for capability delivery by approved, validated projects."

Evidence: NNSA PPBE guidance and execution documents located on the NNSA web-site; FY 2006 President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; NNSA FY 2005 and FY 2006 Program Decision Memoranda; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; and Integrated Priority Lists.

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

Explanation: Yes, the program has taken meaningful steps to improve strategic planning. The consolidation of individual Readiness Campaign sub-programs was done, in part, to improve efficiency. In early FY 2002, it was discovered that the Tritium Extraction Facility could not be completed within the limits of its schedule and budget, even though the project was, at that point, still on track. Steps were taken to rebaseline the Tritium Extraction Facility project in terms of cost, schedule, and management approach. In response to this action, the remainder of the Tritium Readiness Sub-Program was rebaselined in May 2003 and again in September 2004 to tie tritium production rates to revised stockpile requirements. The Readiness Campaign continuously seeks to improve performance. An improved project prioritization process, development of measurable goals, and improved interfaces with stakeholders are some additional actions taken.

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget and NNSA FYNSP; NNSA PPBE material on the NNSA web-site; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; and Readiness Campaign FY2005 Integrated Priority List on NNSA website

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: Analysis of alternatives is conducted principally at the campaign project level. Recent examples of such activity are: (1) Analysis of the need conducted for a High Explosive Pressing capability, (2) Coordination with Production and the Design Agencies on a design plan for the Uranium Processing Facility, and (3) Developing and documenting the need for the Tritium Extraction Facility. In addition, as part of the planning, budgeting, and rebaselining process, various Tritium Readiness cost-performance tradeoff studies are routinely conducted and risk analysis has been an ongoing process. The NNSA decision makers are apprised of the results of these studies.

Evidence: Readiness Campaign Program Plan; FY 2007-2011 DP programming guidance; and program documentation residing in the Program Manager's and Sub-program managers' files. Some reviews are classified.

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: There are no other Federal programs that design, manufacture, maintain, and retire nuclear weapons. However, there are other Federal programs that design, manufacture, maintain, and retire other type weapons or other complex products. The Readiness Campaign Program and Sub-Program Managers actively work with the Department of Defense (DoD), the Federal civilian agencies, and the private sector to assess potential benefits to be derived from such activities.

Evidence: Participation on the Office of Science Policy, Manufacturing Technology Committee's Interagency Working Group task teams, formerly the Government Agencies Technology Exchange in Manufacturing (GATE-M) steering panel; participation with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory on Dual Use Science & Technology (DUS&T); Next Generation Manufacturing Technologies Initiative, effective Complementary Work program; and the robust set of technology partnerships.

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

Explanation: Annually and over the long-term, the NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process prioritizes resources against requirements across all programs. Readiness Campaign requirements and budget requests are guided by the Office of Defense Programs prioritization guidance. Campaign priorities are adjusted as Federal Program Manager requirements change. A formal prioritization process is used for Campaign funding decisions and Readiness Campaign managers, customers, and stakeholders meet twice annually to prioritize planned projects to guide resource allocation decisions. The resulting Integrated Priority List is unique within Defense Programs and provides a valuable tool to guiding resource decisions and assessing their impact.

Evidence: Current DP priorities; FY 2007-2011 DP programming guidance; NNSA PPBE guidance and execution documents located on the NNSA web-site; program review documents; program documentation residing in the Program Manager's/Sub-program Managers' files; and Integrated Priority List documents on NNSA portal. Some reviews are classified.

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: Programmatic performance is monitored using a variety of methods. Monthly and quarterly program reviews are conducted, periodic reports to and from the program managers are generated, performance information is integrated into the portal data base (which is viewable by all sites), and earned-value calculations are used to guide programmatic decisions. The program also participates in the DP Quarterly Program Reviews (QPRs), where it reports progress against milestones to all sites and the other programs.

Evidence: DP QPR briefings and notes; campaign milestone status in DP MRT; and documentation residing in the Program Manager's and Sub-program managers' files. Many of the reviews are classified; unclassified briefings are posted on the NNSA portal.

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 NNSA incorporates program performance into the evaluation standards of senior HQ Federal managers responsible for achieving program results. Senior level managers' Performance Appraisal Plans are required to include "Key Programmatic Accomplishments" that are specific and measurable. Performance requirements flow down from these measures to individual performance goals and objectives that are signed by the Federal employee and supervisor. The NNSA M&O contracts are performance-based, consistent with DOE Acquisition Regulations, to emphasize contractor performance and accountability. The M&O Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans are used to hold contractors accountable for achieving key results, including the objectives and expectations of the program. Failure to achieve stated objectives results in reductions to the fee the contractor earns (for fee-based contracts).

Evidence: Employee Appraisal Plans for Federal employees located in the NNSA Personal office; Performance Evaluation Plans for M&O Contractors located in the contracting officers' files; individual performance plans for M&O contractor employees; DOE Integrated Financial Management System; Financial Data Warehouse, and DP Contractor Performance Evaluation Tool (CPET).

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

Explanation: All program funds are spent for the intended purpose. As required by DOE/NNSA, the program utilizes the Approved Funding Plan and monthly performance-based Work Authorizations that provide the program guidance consistent with distribution of the Plan. Approved funding is the financial guidance controlling the distribution of DOE's obligational authority in compliance with all legal and administrative controls and also provides the funds necessary to support the monthly work authorizations. The program manager, senior NNSA management, and NNSA financial management review and approve these expenditures and validate conformation to program guidance in terms of cost, scope, schedule, and intended purpose.

Evidence: FY 2005 WA/AFP files (and those for prior FYs); NNSA PPBE documentation; DOE Financial Data Warehouse reports; and NA-62 budget oversight.

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: "Although the majority of the program work is done by M&O Contractors, without competitive bid, the program does follow DOE procedures and processes to measure cost reductions, using award and incentive fees to foster site cost reductions. The Readiness Campaign has initiated numerous actions to achieve cost efficiencies. It has developed: (1) An Integrated Priority Process that addresses limited competitive sourcing, (2) Cost comparisons and specific cost estimation guidance to improve the rigor and comparability among the sub-programs, (3) Procedures to benchmark costs against industry technology, and (4) A comprehensive Readiness Campaign Transition Plan to address internal program-level procedures that were incomplete/ inconsistent among sub-programs. Some contracts are fixed-price to help incentivize contractors to seek cost effectiveness. Follow-on contracts were negotiated to lower purchased components unit price. The Tritium Readiness Sub-Program has awarded major commercial competitive procurement contracts. The TEF Project includes performance- based incentives for the M&O Contractor to enhance cost effectiveness/efficiency. In fact, the selection of the tritium production technology was the direct result of a multi-year analysis of several alternative approaches, including cost-effectiveness as a principal criterion."

Evidence: Performance contracts and evaluation plans (8 sites); Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation (DEAR) 970.5204-87; DOE Manual 413.3-1, Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets; Records of procurement actions; trade-off analyses; Readiness Campaign Transition Plan, 2004; and contract clauses.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process integrates activity across programs. The Readiness Campaign jointly plans activities with all weapon programs, other Campaigns, and facility programs at multiple levels. The Campaign actively participates with its customers and stakeholders in integrated priority processes, and is represented on B61, W76, and W80 weapon program Product Realization Teams to ensure that the Life Extension Programs are properly supported. The Campaign coordinates with the Weapons Complex Integration Group to identify linkages to supported weapons program activity. Internally, it is a fully integrated program with effective coordination across its five sub-programs. The Campaign maintains close collaboration with the U.S. Department of Defense (the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory and the Defense Threat Reduction agency) and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Evidence: NNSA PPBE documents on the NNSA web site; NNSA Strategic Plan; FY 2006-2011 Readiness Campaign Program Plan; individual Readiness Campaign FY 2006 Implementation Plans; AFRL Memorandum of Agreement; DOC Interagency Agreement; Integrated Priority List (IPL) planning documents; other program/sub-program planning documents; DP Program Planning & Budgeting documents. In addition, the Weapons Complex Integration (WCI) organization of Sandia National Laboratories is used for communicating weapon program linkages and interdependencies of specific technologies and processes

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Readiness Campaign Program 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 financial statements have been given a clear audit opinion in 8 of the last 9 years. The Readiness Campaign Program Manager and staff review financial data warehouse reports on a monthly basis to monitor obligations and costs for all projects and sites.

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

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

Explanation: "To better integrate technology and readiness initiatives across the complex, the Office of Stockpile Technology was created within the Office of Defense Programs/NNSA. This office is responsible for managing five major sub-programs in an integrated manner, linking Readiness Campaign planning with that of the Directed Stockpile Work Program (requirements drivers) and with Requirements in Technical Base and Facilities Program (broad-based technology deployment and on-going operations) and further integrating Plant Directed Research and Development, Complementary Work, and other technology activities across the several sites of the complex. The result is a multi-part cohesive program. To further strengthen the achievement of the Readiness Campaign objectives and to reduce risk to effective linkage to the Stockpile Readiness, High Explosives and Weapon Operations, and Nonnuclear Readiness Sub-Programs, the ADAPT Sub-Program was moved from the Engineering Campaign to the Readiness Campaign in FY2005. In addition, as part of re-engineering the Tritium Readiness Sub-Program, the management of the TEF construction project was realigned and assigned to the campaign for project management. The other parts of the Tritium Production activity are being redesignated as Tritium Readiness and more fully integrated into the other manufacturing, process improvement and technology enhancement elements of the Readiness Campaign. The result is a multi-part, cohesive program."

Evidence: New organization, NA-123; Applied Technology Roadmap; NNSA Capabilities Inventory catalog; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans; Integrated Prioritization List; Common Project data sheet; interface analyses; piloted cost estimating tool; site-specific technology plans and roadmaps and Integrated Priority List documents on NNSA portal. Weapons Complex Integrations (WCI) monitors and validates requirements with DSW.

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

Explanation: The Readiness Campaign lays out a tiered milestone approach that, at the highest level, lays out a desired capability. The desired outcome is then supported by intermediary milestones that provide an incremental path to the ultimate capability. Each of the intermediary milestones are driven by specific technology needs. These milestones are all laid out on a schedule in conjunction with an identified budget. Facility/capital acquisition projects are managed using DOE's construction management system based on Critical Decision points throughout the project. Specific annual performance measures for the Readiness Campaign and its sub-programs are identified in the Readiness Campaign Program Plan and tied to M&O contracts and individual performance plans.

Evidence: FY 2006 President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Readiness Campaign Program Plan; individual Readiness Campaign Implementation Plans; and M&O contractor Performance Evaluation Plans.

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

Explanation: The Readiness Campaign seeks to make use of available resources in the most efficient and effective manner that produces the greatest possible benefit to the Directed Stockpile Work, Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, and, ultimately, the U.S. taxpayer. Standard project controls are used to monitor the deployment of technologies in the Readiness Campaign. Periodic program reviews are conducted to measure progress, resolve issues, redirect efforts, or terminate projects.

Evidence: Steering committees, Stage Gate process; Integrated Priorities List; program review briefings and notes; and incremental program authorizations.

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

Explanation: "Although recently established, the Readiness Campaign is successfully accomplishing activities enroute to its long-term performance goals (Q2.1). In addition, it has accomplished many difficult milestones in FY 2003-05 that enhance the Nuclear Weapons Complex production readiness status and ensure that manufacturing processes and technology required to support DSW production are in place. Representative examples include: (1) Assembly processes for Radio Frequency (RF) microcircuits supporting W76 RF Deck, (2) Purge weld tube welding processes the W76 Armed Fuzing & Firing, (3) Placeware Extranet site for engineering meetings and training, (4) Inter-Project Scheduling System-Integrated Production Scheduling System for the Nuclear Weapons Complex, (5) Machine modernization for Computer Numeric Control machine tools, and (6) Replacement of obsolete testers in support of the LEPs. The program has also made measurable progress toward introducing new technologies into weapon refurbishment, design, and manufacturing processes; improving manufacturing processes for nuclear weapon stockpile stewardship; proving the concept to make tritium for nuclear weapons; and progressing toward successful TEF project end by FY 2007. The Readiness Campaign is linked to major Defense Programs milestones and results are measured against annual operating expectations."

Evidence: Readiness Campaign performance measures (Measures Tab); Readiness Campaign milestones in DP MRT; Defense Programs List of Priorities; Applied Technology Roadmap; Monthly TEF Project reports; and Readiness Campaign program reviews. See also LEP files for capabilities delivered to meet LEP customer schedules. Key examples of goals accomplished include: (1) Completed first tritium production cycle in a TVA reactor, (2) developed Advanced Joint Test Assessment telemetry hardware, (3) Established new capability for non-destructive inspection of deep Electron Beam welds, (4) Completed replacement of additional obsolete testers in support of LEPs, and (4) Completed Nuclear Explosive Safety Study for Integrated Electronic Procedures.

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

Explanation: The Readiness Campaign has demonstrated effectiveness in accomplishing its annual performance goals (Q2.3) and its annual program milestones and project activities. The program met its three major FY 2004 annual performance goals and is on track to meet the four for FY 2005. Regarding its internal performance targets, the campaign is using its membership on the LEP PRTs to remain on track to meet key milestones in support of the W76 and W80 LEPs. Overall program performance has been excellent and has appropriately managed the potential adverse programmatic impacts of continuing resolutions, increasing security conditions, and DSW/RTBF priority adjustments. The Readiness Campaign is inherently involved in some high risk research and development; therefore, not all projects are expected to achieve all of the planned program milestones. If milestones are missed, the project is reviewed for redirection or termination. The Readiness Campaign is working through the WCI Group to remain on track with other programs.

Evidence: FY 2006-2010 Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Matrix of weapon program requirements/Readiness Campaign deliverables; FY 2006-2011 Readiness Campaign Program Plan; LEP PRT documentation; WCI Group documentation; individual Readiness Campaign FY 2006 Implementation Plans; Applied Technology Roadmap; DP QPR briefings; Readiness Campaign milestones in DP MRT; and Readiness Campaign program reviews. Also see Measures Tab, this workbook.

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

Explanation: "The Readiness Campaign supports critical Science/experimental needs (for example, Hydrodynamic Test Parts, Sub-Critical Test Assemblies, and Joint Test Assemblies) which drive high-level capability requirements through War Reserve production. The development of the manufacturing processes and technologies on this program is a major contributor to both the W76 and W80 Life Extension Programs, while reaching major cost targets (for example, one-fourth the cost of W76 Arming, Fuzing, & Firing subsystem). The Tritium Extraction Facility of the Tritium Readiness Sub-Program was rebaselined in May 2003 to bring funding in line with the additional project scope and in June 2004 to adjust to changing national tritium requirements. Funding to irradiate rods at the Sequoyah TVA reactor, in addition to the current Watts Bar reactor, was included in 2003. Tritium Readiness efforts are focused on avoiding the need to exercise the Sequoyah option but that decision will be driven by the future size of the stockpile. Planning for the Sequoyah at this time avoids higher implementation costs later if this option is needed. "

Evidence: "Changes to budget structure; changes to baseline; modifications to program and site plans; records of procurement actions; trade-off analyses; contract clauses; and basis of prioritization for IPL. "

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

Explanation: The Readiness Campaign has achieved a high degree of success against the planned objectives. The FY 2002-2003 Readiness Campaign accomplishments demonstrate the program's effectiveness.

Evidence: Creation of the Office of Technology Development and assignment of Readiness Campaign; publication of Applied Technology Roadmap; growth of Complementary Work; use of technology partnerships; recognition of specific project successes; Future Technology Conference 2004; and FY 2002-04 Readiness Campaign accomplishments.

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

Explanation: "Several subprograms were satisfactorily reviewed by the GAO and/or DOE IG. Where problems were noted, the program took corrective action. For example: (1) The in-process review of the ADAPT Sub-program (DOE IG audit--Job Code A04LL017) identified a site change control process issue; but, the Readiness Campaign Manager recognized this as a broader program-level change control issue and directed a program-wide correction; (2) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission approval of the Tritium Cask constituted an external review and validation of the Tritium Sub-Program Plan and Risk Assessment; and (3) The Sandia National Laboratories' evaluation of the campaign's Integrated Priority Process and the Design and Production Agency assessment on Microware Casting served to demonstrate the Campaign's planned and actual progress to outside evaluation, often by major stakeholders. Major stakeholders were also active in the Agile Machine Workshop, Models-Based Workshop, and the Future Technology Conference in 2004. Other organized evaluations included the M&O Contractor Performance Evaluation Plan process, which is largely independent of the Office of Military Application and Stockpile Operations, and Weapons Integration Council , sponsored by the Office of Program Integration, that documented program effectiveness and results. These evaluations generally confirmed that the Readiness Campaign was effective and achieving results. "

Evidence: M&O Contractor Performance Evaluations (maintained by the contracting officers and NNSA-HQ). A list of specific FY 2004 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and DOE Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reports compiled for reference in this document in June 2004 and maintained in campaign files. Program Plan evaluation was by Savannah River Site Systems Engineering personnel for the Office of military Application and Stockpile Operations, in FY2004.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: For FY 2004, the Readiness Campaign completed the year within its budget while meeting all major program goals. In the current year, the program is reviewing actual costs against planned program costs and, to date, program milestones are being completed on schedule and within budget limitations. Critical Decision (CD)-4s--approval to start operations or close out the project--have been reached for most applicable Readiness Campaign projects without a significant baseline change approved.

Evidence: Matrix of Weapon Program requirements/Campaign deliverables; monthly TEF project reports; CD-4 approvals, B&R from NA63.