Detailed Information on the
National Nuclear Security Administration: Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Assessment

Revising program focus and performance measures to support the requirements of modernizing the nuclear weapons complex.

Improving the coordination of activities across multiple NNSA programs aimed at nuclear weapons activities, especially research and development work across 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, including transfer of Pit Manufacturing/Pit Manufacturing Capability to Directed Stockpile Work, Pit Certification to the Science Campaign, and Pit-related construction to Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities.

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

Measure: Annual number of certified W88 pits manufactured at LANL [certified means the pit is approved for use within the nuclear weapons stockpile based on quality assurance of the product and evaluation of performance through non-nuclear testing]

Explanation:

Measure: Annual percentage of data points that are provided by experimental capabilities meeting the requirements of model development for measuring properties of high-Z materials under weapons-relevant conditions

Explanation:

Measure: Cumulative percentage of major milestones completed toward restoration of the capability to manufacture all pit types in the enduring stockpile

Explanation:

Measure: Annual cost, in millions of dollars, per pit capacity to maintain a pit manufacturing capability

Explanation:

Measure: Cumulative percentage of major milestones for enhancing the capacity of pit manufacturing from 10 pits per year to 30 to 40 pits per year [to be documented in a Project Execution Plan to be developed in FY 2007 in preparation for implementation with funding allocated in the NNSA Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) budgeting and planning document beginning in FY 2008]

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The goal of the Pit Manufacturing and Certification campaign is to restore the capability and some limited capacity to manufacture pits (nuclear material trigger components within a nuclear weapon which initiate the nuclear explosion) of all types required for the nuclear weapons stockpile. Each element of the campaign has a well-defined end state.

Evidence: The FY 2007 President's Budget and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) FY 2007-2011 Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP), Feb 06; NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation (PPBE) process input; FY 2006-2011 Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan, Sep 05 (a multi-year project execution plan); FY 2006 Pit Manufacturing and Certification Implementation Plan, Jan 06 (a current year project execution plan derived from the Program Plan); Pit Manufacturing and Certification Integrated Project Plan, May 05 (a specific project execution plan derived from the Program Plan for pit manufacturing and certification activities); and quarterly and annual reports to Congress. All provide the purpose and end state of the campaign.

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

Explanation: The United States has not had the capability to make plutonium pits for the stockpile since the shutdown of the Rocky Flats Plant in 1989. The nuclear weapons stockpile remains essential to the nation's strategic defense. The ability to manufacture pits in quantity is necessary to maintain the weapons within the nuclear weapons stockpile. Replacement pits must be manufactured to support stockpile surveillance and to replace pits due to aging or other issues that may arise. The need to reconstitute the capability to manufacture pits has been widely recognized by Congress, the Department of Defense (DoD), and Department of Energy (DOE). This campaign responds to that specific and unique need.

Evidence: U.S. National Defense Strategy; Nuclear Posture Review-2001 results; DOE Strategic Plan, Sep 03; NNSA Strategic Plan, Nov 04; Office of Defense Programs (DP) Strategic Vision for 2030, Feb 05; U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) Stockpile Assessment Team (SAT) reports; Congressionally-Chartered Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel") reports; and Congressional authorization and appropriation language.

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

Explanation: No other Federal, state, local, or private program has the requirement to manufacture pits. The NNSA nuclear weapons complex is the only activity with the mission to manufacture nuclear weapons for the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. The National Nuclear Security Administration has the unique responsibility to meet the nuclear weapon requirements of the Department of Defense. The NNSA management has assigned the specific mission to restore the capability to produce pits to the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; DOE Strategic Plan, NNSA Strategic Plan; DP Strategic Vision for 2030, Feb 05; and current Defense Programs Priorities (as contained in DP FY 2008-2012 Program and Resource Guidance, Mar 06).

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, vetted, and approved by the DOE and NNSA. The Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) has been assigned the mission to establish a limited pit manufacturing capacity and develop a supporting certification program for qualifying the product as acceptable to enter the nuclear weapons stockpile. All activities and the schedule for their accomplishment are being implemented through an integrated plan whose milestones and deliverables are being monitored through monthly reviews and reporting. Risk analyses have been accomplished and mitigation efforts identified and implemented to ensure success.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP6; NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation process input; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Implementation Plan; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Integrated Project Plan; Unicorn Risk Management Plan, Dec 05; and Pit Manufacturing and Certification Draft Risk Assessment Report, Nov 01.

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

Explanation: Rigorous project management has been instituted in managing the pit manufacturing and certification effort at LANL to ensure that work elements are properly scoped, scheduled, and funded. Funds are allotted via the DOE/NNSA funding process (Approved Funding Program documents) and work is formally authorized by Work Authorization documents based on approved activities in the Pit Campaign Implementation Plan. Project and Program professionals use management tools to monitor scope, schedule, and cost performance. Earned Value Management is used to measure the scheduled accomplishments of activities, and deliverables and their costs are provided monthly. Procedures, such as configuration management, ensure that the processes and procedures used are approved and are based on principles that ensure the required quality of the product.

Evidence: PPBE input; Approved Funding Program (AFP) and Work Authorization (WA) documents; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Implementation Plan; quarterly and annual reports to Congress; work packages; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Integrated Project Plan; monthly financial reports; earned value reports; and meetings & discussions with relevant program managers.

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 assess progress towards achieving the program purpose. They are: (1) By 2007, establish the capability to manufacture 10 (W88) sea- launched ballistic missile pits certified (approved for use within the nuclear weapons stockpile based on quality assurance of the manufactured product and assessed performance based on non-nuclear testing) for the nuclear weapons stockpile per year; (2) Annually (beginning in FY 2008), produce 10 certified W88 pits until the required number has been manufactured (currently by 2014); (3) By 2007, issue a certification statement for the pits being manufactured at LANL; (4) By 2009, establish a manufacturing process capability for all pit types; (5) By 2012, manufacture the initial development pits for a reliable replacement warhead; (6) By 2013, reduce the cost to maintain a pit capability from $12M per pit manufacturing capacity (in 2008) to $5M; and (7) By 2012, enhance the pit manufacturing capacity from 10 pits per year to 30 to 40 pits per year.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan; and annual reports to Congress. Also see PART Measures Tab.

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

Explanation: Given the time since the nuclear weapons complex has had a pit manufacturing capability and the importance of pits to nuclear weapons, these long-term measures are ambitious, as well as cost-effective. Furthermore, comprehensive planning and reviews to date indicate that they are realistic and achievable. To support them, milestone completion dates have been established, in multiple layers. In addition, the Campaign has aggressively moved up completion of key activities (e.g. Certification of W88 pit was accelerated from FY 2009 to FY 2007).

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan; Pit Manufacturing and Certification CampaignIntegrated Project Plan; status of Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign milestones in the DP Milestone Reporting Tool (MRT); and annual reports to Congress.

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 that meaningfully assess progress in achieving the program's long-term measures. For FY 2008, they are: (1) Produce 10 certified W88 pits; (2) Complete 75% (an additional 20% over FY 2007) of the major milestones towards restoration of an FY 2009 capability to manufacture the pit types in the enduring stockpile; and (3) Achieve a cost to maintain a pit manufacturing capability at $12M per pit capacity. For additional year targets, please see PART Measures Tab.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Implementation Plan; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Integrated Project Plan; and annual reports to Congress. Also see PART Measures Tab.

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

Explanation: The baseline is established through a heirarchy of plans that describe the scope, schedule, and cost of the activities and deliverables. These deliverables define ambitious targets described in long-term and annual performance measures. Annual external performance measures are established and tracked by program management to achieve these baseline deliverables. The program has generally been on track in FY 2003 - FY 2005. The external measures are supported by internal measures--technical milestones. Level 1 Milestones are supported by annual programmatic/Level 2 milestones that are, in turn, supported by a number of lower/site level milestones as a way to demonstrate and measure progress toward completion of the annual external performance measure. Baselined scope, cost, and schedule were established for Earned Value Management (a standard project management tool to measure progress on schedule and cost) use to track effective use of resources and manage the project schedule. Federal program staff requires the Management and Operating (M&O) Contractors to reduce costs and accelerate progress on campaign milestones.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Integrated Project Plan; annual reports to Congress; and monthly earned value reports.

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: Federal personnel and the M&O Contractors work together to establish aggressive and achievable project budgets, schedules, and milestones to achieve baseline deliverables. Performance targets are incorporated into the individual performance plans of federal personnel and M&O contractor Performance Evaluation Plans (PEPs) (the main tool for recognizing contractor performance and providing pecuniary and non-pecuniary awards).

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Implementation Plan; individual annual federal personnel Measures of Performance (MOPs) and evaluations; and annual M&O Contractor PEPs and 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: The ongoing LANL W88 pit manufacturing and certification activity is peer reviewed by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). Program briefings and reviews are frequently conducted for Congressional review bodies (e.g., Foster Panel) and DoD reviewers (e.g., SAGSAT). LANL also established an independent review body ("Foley Panel") to study the high-level goals and methodologies used to execute the W88 pit project. In addition, under joint (U.S-U.K.) agreement, technology reviews are conducted to share information and critique technology development efforts.

Evidence: LLNL W88 pit peer review reports; DOE Inspector General (IG) reports; U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group Stockpile Assessment Team (SAGSAT) reports; Congressionally-Chartered Panel to Assess the Reliability Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel") reports; LANL-chartered Foley Panel reports; and Joint (U.S.-U.K.) Working Group briefing documents and notes.

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: This program, like other NNSA programs, 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 program performance measures are the framework for NNSA resource allocation decisions made in the annual PPBE Programming and Budgeting processes. Annually, the NNSA performance-planning-budgeting decisions are documented in the Administrator's Final Recommendation and used to develop the budget request during the PPBE Budgeting Phase. Program and financial performance for each measure is corporately monitored and assessed during Budget Execution and the PPBE Evaluation Phase. The DOE/NNSA Budget and Reporting (B&R) categories detail all direct and indirect costs to attain the performance results for the campaign. The cost for the NNSA Federal employees is carried in a separate NNSA program direction account, as required by the Congress. 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 ("GPRA Units") in the mainline budget justification document. Formerly, the outyear funding and performance targets were included in a separate document, the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program, provided with the budget request.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; NNSA PPBE Guidance Documents located on the NNSA web site; NNSA FY 2005 and FY 2006 Program Decision Memoranda, and FY 2007 Administrator's Final Recommendation.

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

Explanation: Annually, the NNSA PPBE process fosters program integration during the Planning and Programming phases. The Campaign Program Plan directly supports the DOE/NNSA Defense Strategic Goal and the Defense Programs priorities on a multi-year basis. The Campaign Implementation Plan and the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Integrated Project Plan detail the specific work required to be done by the M&O contractor(s). Federal personnel assigned to the campaign evaluate the M&O Contractor progress on a monthly basis. The Project has been reviewed by the DOE Inspector General and identified deficiencies have been addressed. For example, an integrated schedule between manufacturing and certification was developed with links allowing a critical path schedule to be developed to achieve strategic objectives.

Evidence: DOE and NNSA Strategic Plans; Defense Programs Vision for 2030; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Implementation Plan; annual and quarterly reports to Congress; NNSA PPBE documents; and DOE IG-0551, Audit Report on the Department of Energy's Pit Production Program, 13 Apr 02, with NNSA response. "

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: No other projects within the NNSA; Federal, state, or local government; or the private sector have a similar goal similar to that of the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; LLNL peer review reports; DOE Inspector General reports; SAGSAT reports; Congressionally-Chartered Panel to Assess the Reliability Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel") reports; and Congressional budget language.

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

Explanation: Program long-term priorities and performance measures are established from DOE/NNSA strategic goals and Defense Programs priorities. Program annual performance measures and supporting technical milestones are identified to directly support this strategic planning and modified to comply with NNSA and Defense Programs FYNSP planning and resource guidance. During the execution year, progress against the measures and milestones is tracked by program management, using a well-defined process of monthly reviews and earned value reporting. A baseline change procedure has also been established to provide a process for formally approving scope, schedule, and funding changes from approved plans.

Evidence: DOE and NNSA Strategic Plans; NNSA FY 2008-2012 Program and Fiscal Guidance; DP Programming and Resource Call Guidance for FY 2008-2012; NA-10 Program Management Manual; monthly review notes; status of campaign milestones in DP MRT; and DOE Order 413.3, Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets.

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 M&O contractor 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. Milestone 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; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign milestone status in the DP MRT; Quarterly Joule reports; DOE FY 2005 PAR; FY 2005 NNSA Performance Report; annual and quarterly reports to Congress; NA-10 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: Program objectives are incorporated into the performance evaluations of program personnel. Federal personnel assigned to the campaign evaluate the progress of the M&O Contractor on a monthly basis. Performance on elements of the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign is considered when determining M&O performance, and is also part of the evaluation criteria for federal personnel assigned to the Project.

Evidence: Individual annual Federal personnel MOPs and evaluations; agreements on campaign budgets and milestones; and annual M&O Contractor performance evaluation plans and 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 Campaign 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: 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: Where it can be done, comparisons of cost between providers are performed. A continuous improvement program using the concepts of "lean manufacturing" and Six Sigma, which are commercial industry programs to evaluate programs and achieve higher level of efficiencies, has been initiated and efficiencies in cost and schedule realized. Earned value reporting is integrated into program management.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; annual reports to Congress; peer process documents; monthly program reviews and earned value reports; and Los Alamos National Laboratory reports on continuous improvement initiatives.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The NNSA PPBE process enables annual program coordination during the Planning and Programming phases. Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program and Implementation plans are circulated to all programs, and the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign has access to other DP Program and Implementation Plans. Other NNSA programmatic efforts (e.g. facility readiness, directed stockpile work, and other campaigns) are monitored to ensure that synergies are effectively utilized and the impacts to this campaign from changes to other NNSA program elements are known. During the DP QPRs, all programs present cost, scope, and schedule status. To meet nuclear weapons stockpile requirements, the campaign staff coordinates with other Defense Programs elements who conduct liasion with the Department of Defense on specific weapon and stockpile requirements.

Evidence: The President's Budget /NNSA FYNSP; NNSA PPBE documents on the NNSA web site; DP Program Plans; DP Implementation Plans; DP QPR briefings; annual reports to Congress; and discussions/meetings with relevant program managers.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign 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 Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program staff reviews cost expenditure reports on a monthly basis to monitor campaign-related obligations and costs from all sites (actual vs. planned expenditures).

Evidence: DOE Financial Management Orders; NNSA PPBE documents on the NNSA web site; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Implementation Plan; AFP documents; and DOE financial data warehouse reports.

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

Explanation: The program has rigorously reviewed and improved program and project management in response to both internal and external reviews. For example, a DOE IG report recommended: (1) Logically link all related work activities for manufacturing and certification within the critical path; (2) Periodically, (at least quarterly) review for accuracy all changes entered into the project management software using approved baseline changed procedures; (3) Ensure that all work packages have deliverables, milestones, and assumptions identified for the work scope described in the work packages; and (4) "Lock in" the target dates for work completion that have been entered into the project management software. These recommendations have been implemented and the concern of the IG about possible delays in meeting milestones ("the Department's ability to produce a certifiable pit in accordance with its performance plans is at risk") has not occurred - a certifiable pit was produced on schedule in Apr 03.

Evidence: LLNL W88 pit peer review reports; DOE Inspector General Report DOE IG-0551, 13 Apr 02 and NNSA response); SAGSAT reports; and Congressionally-Chartered Panel to Assess the Reliability Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel") reports.

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

Explanation: The program allocates funds using the DOE/NNSA AFP/WA processes, consistent with program plans and schedules. Progress is monitored monthly. Earned Value Management data is used to manage the pit manufacturing and certification effort. Due to the classified and nuclear weapons subject nature of much of the research, the opportunities for competitive selection are limited. Research decisions are based on cost, experience, and resource availability.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; AFP & WA files; monthly financial and earned value reports; and annual reports to Congress.

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

Explanation: This Campaign is on-track to meet its long-term performance goals. It has had to rebaseline its activities in response to several major issues, outside of the control of the Campaign but indirectly impacted its schedule, such as the need for pit certification to accommodate the W76 Life Extension Program, resource/funding limitations, and the 2004 - 2005 LANL safety- and security-related standdown which increased risk to achieving LANL-related project milestones. Since the LANL restart in FY 2005, the campaign has re-baselined activities to reduce some pit certification activities but still remains on track for the FY 2007 Level 1 milestones. All pits and parts required for certification activities have been manufactured.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan; earned value reports; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign milestone status in the DP MRT; and annual reports to Congress.

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

Explanation: The Program has met and expects to meet its annual performance goals. All Level 2 Milestones and the FY 2007 Level 1 Milestone for achieving a certifiable W88 pit have been met through FY 2005. Where there have been impacts to the Campaign from activities which indirectly support support the Campaign activities but are outside the control of the Campaign, some Level 2 Milestones have been shifted. However, the Campaign has been able to rebaseline its projects to ensure achievement of Level 1 Milestones and annual performance goals. For example, the FY 2004 - FY 2005 LANL safety- and security-related standdown and the later LLNL SuperBlock standdown necessitated some FY 2004 LANL Level 2 Milestones in pit manufacturing and manufacturing capability to be slipped to FY 2005. As a result of the LLNL standdown, an FY 2005 LLNL level 2 milestone was slipped to FY 2006. These are currently all on schedule.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program and Implementation Plans; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign milestone status in the DP MRT; earned value reports; and Annual reports to Congress. Also see PART Measures Tab.

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

Explanation: Earlier program cost and schedule projections have been revised based on management experience. For example, the Campaign reduced the projected cost of the W88 pit certification from earlier estimates by some $280M and accelerated the certification date by two years. Continuous improvement efforts through lean manufacturing and Six Sigma efforts continue to gain cost efficiencies in the program.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Program Plan; Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign Implementation Plan; annual reports to Congress; and Continuous Improvement Initiative reports.

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

Explanation: No other project within the DOE/NNSA; Federal, state, or local government; or private sector has a similar purpose or performance expectation compared to those of the Pit Manufacturing and Certification Campaign.

Evidence: The President's Budget/NNSA FYNSP; LLNL W88 peer review reports; DOE Inspector General reports; SAGSAT reports; Congressionally-Chartered Panel to Assess the Reliability Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel") reports; and Congressional budget language.

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

Explanation: Due to the specific technical and classified nature of the program, there are few organizations capable of evaluating the scope and quality of the program. The Campaign takes maximum advantage of those that do exist. For example, besides the IG report discussed earlier, the LLNL W88 pit peer review of the pit product manufacturing and certification has provided criticality and performance prediction validation of sub-critical tests, as well as engineering test evaluations and an engineering evaluation of manufacturing procedures, without any identified issues. The "Foster Panel," in its 2001 Report stated that: "...completing the W88 Pit Manufacturing and Certification Project at the Los Alamos prototype production facility is essential for capturing the unique skills and technologies needed tp produce these plutionium parts...." and, in its 2003 report (with regard to the nuclear weapons complex), stated that there was "evidence of progress in replenishing both the facility and workforce infrastructure." The SAGSAT has reviewed the Campaign annually and, in its 2005 report stated: "...evaluated structured program and finds it thoughtful and credible . . ." and recommended it to ". . . proceed on course . . .." The Pit Campaign also responds to results of the U.S.-U.K. Joint Atomic Information Exchange Group and the Joint Working Groups for discussion within technical areas to ensure the technical basis of processes and procedures are sound.

Evidence: DOE Inspector General report DOE IG-0551, 13 Apr 02 and NNSA response; LLNL W88 pit peer reports; SAGSAT reports; Congressionally-Chartered Panel to Assess the Reliability Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile ("Foster Panel") reports; and Joint Working Group notes in the Joint (U.S.-U.K.) Atomic Information Exchange Group.