More Resources
-
February 26, 2003Issued to Bechtel Nevada related to Authorization Basis Noncompliances at the Nevada Test SiteOffice of Enterprise Assessments
-
February 26, 2003Statement of Gregory H. Friedman, Inspector General U.S. Department of Energy Subject: Los Alamos National Laboratory inquiryOffice of Inspector General
-
DocumentFebruary 26, 2003Presidential permit authorizing International Transmission Company to construct, operate, and maintain electric transmission facilities at the U.S-Canadian border.Office of Electricity
-
DocumentFebruary 26, 2003Audit of the Office of Science Infrastructure Modernization InitiativesOffice of Inspector General
-
February 24, 2003Based on DOE/EA-1394, FONSI for public access to the BONUS reactor building, Rincon, Puerto Rico.Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance
-
DocumentFebruary 21, 2003The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) maintains 1,643 firearms for use by its protective force contractor, Protection Technology Los Alamos (PTLA), and its Security and Safeguards and Dynamic Experimentation Divisions. Firearms are considered sensitive items by DOE and are subject to strict inventory controls. The purpose of this inspection was to determine if internal controls over firearms at LANL are adequate and whether the firearms inventory is administered appropriate1 y.Office of Inspector General
-
DocumentFebruary 21, 2003Inspection Firearms Internal Controls at Los Alamos National LaboratoryOffice of Inspector General
-
DocumentFebruary 21, 2003Our review of 11 major projects (see Appendix 1) disclosed that information systems development activities were not always consistent with Federal requirements or guidance. We found development problems with nine of the projects. For example: • Key planning activities such as cost-benefit analyses had not been performed for eight of the projects we reviewed; • Evaluations of suitability of potential software solutions were often inadequate or had not been performed; • Many projects were not adequately monitored and controlled throughout their lifecycle, and project baselines and plans were not revisited in light of scope changes or delays; and, • For 6 of the 11 projects reviewed, reengineering studies designed to improve business processes before beginning development had not been conducted. In addition, Bonneville and Western did not consistently include all relevant project costs in accounting for its development efforts.ioactivOffice of Inspector General
-
DocumentFebruary 21, 2003Information System Development Practices at the Bonneville and Western Area Power AdministrationsOffice of Inspector General