To operate the Hanford Site (Site), contractors need to use numerous services, such as telecommunications, copying, and photography. The Richland Operations Office (Richland) directed certain contractors to provide these and other services, called "site services," for the benefit of all contractors and assigned responsibility for optimal utilization of these services to its Site Infrastructure Division (SID). In the past, the Office of Inspector General audited several site services, including groundwater monitoring, protective forces, personnel security clearances, railroad services, and fleet management. These audits disclosed that the services were not always efficiently and effectively coordinated. Therefore, the objective of this audit was to examine other site services, principally those provided at least in part by Fluor Daniel Hanford, Inc.,
to determine if contractors were acquiring services already available.
to determine if contractors were acquiring services already available.
In a prior report, Audit of Light Vehicle Fleet Management at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, WR-B-93-7, September 29, 1993, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) concluded that vehicle fleet
operations might be done more cost effectively by the General Services Administration (GSA) than by Idaho Operations Office (Idaho) and its contractor. The report also concluded that a significant number of vehicles
were underused and the fleet was too large. Accordingly, the report contained recommendations that a cost comparison study be conducted to ascertain the most economical and efficient method of managing fleet
operations and that vehicle usage data be reviewed periodically by the contractor, with prompt reassignment or disposal of significantly underused vehicles. Thus, the purpose of this audit was to determine if action had
been taken to implement recommendations in the prior report. Specifically, the objectives of the current audit were to determine whether a cost comparison had been performed and whether the fleet was still too
large.
operations might be done more cost effectively by the General Services Administration (GSA) than by Idaho Operations Office (Idaho) and its contractor. The report also concluded that a significant number of vehicles
were underused and the fleet was too large. Accordingly, the report contained recommendations that a cost comparison study be conducted to ascertain the most economical and efficient method of managing fleet
operations and that vehicle usage data be reviewed periodically by the contractor, with prompt reassignment or disposal of significantly underused vehicles. Thus, the purpose of this audit was to determine if action had
been taken to implement recommendations in the prior report. Specifically, the objectives of the current audit were to determine whether a cost comparison had been performed and whether the fleet was still too
large.
Audit Report VEHICLE FLEET MANAGEMENT AT THE IDAHO NATIONALENGINEERING AND ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY, WR-B-99-02
Report on Matters Identified at The Idaho Operations Office during The Audit of The Department's Consolidated Fiscal year 1998 Financial Statements
Audit Of The U.S Department Of Energy's Consolidated Financial Statements For Fiscal Year 1998
We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of the U.S. Department of Energy (Department) as of September 30, 1998 and 1997, and the related consolidated statements of net cost, changes in net position, budgetary resources, financing, and custodial activity for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Department’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.
Waste Treatment Plans at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (Laboratory) stores nearly 65,000 cubic
meters of waste generated on site or brought to the State of Idaho (Idaho) from Department of Energy
(DOE) sites across the country. Because Idaho was concerned that the State might become a "de facto" permanent repository, the Governor of Idaho sought and received an injunction from the Federal courts which prohibited future waste shipments to Idaho. The injunction also affected the Navy's shipment of spent nuclear fuel into the Laboratory. Due to concerns about the injunction's impact, DOE and the Navy negotiated with Idaho and signed the Idaho Settlement
Agreement (Agreement) on October 17, 1995. The purpose of our audit was to determine whether it is in the best interest of the Government to defer processing the 3,100 cubic meters of waste until the new Treatment Facility can do so.
meters of waste generated on site or brought to the State of Idaho (Idaho) from Department of Energy
(DOE) sites across the country. Because Idaho was concerned that the State might become a "de facto" permanent repository, the Governor of Idaho sought and received an injunction from the Federal courts which prohibited future waste shipments to Idaho. The injunction also affected the Navy's shipment of spent nuclear fuel into the Laboratory. Due to concerns about the injunction's impact, DOE and the Navy negotiated with Idaho and signed the Idaho Settlement
Agreement (Agreement) on October 17, 1995. The purpose of our audit was to determine whether it is in the best interest of the Government to defer processing the 3,100 cubic meters of waste until the new Treatment Facility can do so.
The U. S. Department of Energy's Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results Act) was enacted to improve Federal
program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results-oriented management.
The Results Act requires plans that define the mission, long-term goals, and shorter-term performance
measures. Further, the Act envisions that there will be an apparent relationship between this information and
specific activities listed in the Department’s budget requests. Taken together, these elements should clearly
describe the outputs and outcomes the Department expects to deliver for the resources expended.
The objectives of this audit were to determine whether the Department had implemented the requirements of
the Results Act by (1) integrating the planning, budgeting, and performance measures for its programs into a
unified, Departmentwide strategy; (2) developing specific, measurable, and results-oriented performance
standards to which its programs and contractors could be held accountable; and (3) developing the means to
collect reliable performance data and to use that data in evaluating whether performance actions produce
intended results. The information in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget requests for the Offices of Environmental
Management, Defense Programs, Energy Research, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Nuclear
Energy Science and Technology formed the basis of our review.od
program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on results-oriented management.
The Results Act requires plans that define the mission, long-term goals, and shorter-term performance
measures. Further, the Act envisions that there will be an apparent relationship between this information and
specific activities listed in the Department’s budget requests. Taken together, these elements should clearly
describe the outputs and outcomes the Department expects to deliver for the resources expended.
The objectives of this audit were to determine whether the Department had implemented the requirements of
the Results Act by (1) integrating the planning, budgeting, and performance measures for its programs into a
unified, Departmentwide strategy; (2) developing specific, measurable, and results-oriented performance
standards to which its programs and contractors could be held accountable; and (3) developing the means to
collect reliable performance data and to use that data in evaluating whether performance actions produce
intended results. The information in the Fiscal Year 1999 budget requests for the Offices of Environmental
Management, Defense Programs, Energy Research, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, and Nuclear
Energy Science and Technology formed the basis of our review.od