The Department, as of July 15, 1996, administered 7,452 grants. The Government's share or
contribution for these grants was about $8 billion. Grants are used in those situations where the
award is intended to serve a public purpose and where limited Federal involvement is anticipated.
Departmental personnel have a responsibility to monitor the activities of a grantee to ensure that
the intended programmatic goal is achieved and that funds are expended in accordance with the
terms of the grant award. This is accomplished, in part, through the review and analysis of
technical and financial reports prepared by the grant recipient. The objective of this audit was to
determine whether the Department received final deliverables, detailing grantee accomplishments
and expenditure of funds, in accordance with Federal and Departmental policies and procedures.
contribution for these grants was about $8 billion. Grants are used in those situations where the
award is intended to serve a public purpose and where limited Federal involvement is anticipated.
Departmental personnel have a responsibility to monitor the activities of a grantee to ensure that
the intended programmatic goal is achieved and that funds are expended in accordance with the
terms of the grant award. This is accomplished, in part, through the review and analysis of
technical and financial reports prepared by the grant recipient. The objective of this audit was to
determine whether the Department received final deliverables, detailing grantee accomplishments
and expenditure of funds, in accordance with Federal and Departmental policies and procedures.
Audit Of Selected Government-Funded Grants And Contracts At Princeton University
As the cognizant audit agency for Princeton University (Princeton), we audited Princeton's
costs claimed under 20 Government-funded, cost-reimbursement grants and contracts
(agreements). The Defense Contract Audit Agency had advised us that several Princeton
employees, including two principal investigators, were also employed by a commercial business.
These 2 principal investigators were responsible for 28 Government-funded agreements at
Princeton between October 1, 1986, and December 31, 1996. After becoming aware that
Princeton employees were also working at a commercial business, we initiated this audit of the
agreements assigned to the two principal investigators. The audit covered 20 of the agreements
with claimed costs of $19 million. We did not audit the remaining eight agreements because the
record retention period had expired.
costs claimed under 20 Government-funded, cost-reimbursement grants and contracts
(agreements). The Defense Contract Audit Agency had advised us that several Princeton
employees, including two principal investigators, were also employed by a commercial business.
These 2 principal investigators were responsible for 28 Government-funded agreements at
Princeton between October 1, 1986, and December 31, 1996. After becoming aware that
Princeton employees were also working at a commercial business, we initiated this audit of the
agreements assigned to the two principal investigators. The audit covered 20 of the agreements
with claimed costs of $19 million. We did not audit the remaining eight agreements because the
record retention period had expired.
Audit Of The Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility Operations At The Los Alamos National Labratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los Alamos) generates radioactive and liquid wastes that must be treated before being discharged to the environment. Presently, the liquid wastes are treated in the Radioactive Liquid Waste Treatment Facility (Treatment Facility), which is over 30
years old and in need of repair or replacement. However, there are various ways to satisfy the treatment need. The objective of the audit was to determine whether Los Alamos cost effectively managed its Treatment Facility operations.
years old and in need of repair or replacement. However, there are various ways to satisfy the treatment need. The objective of the audit was to determine whether Los Alamos cost effectively managed its Treatment Facility operations.
Report On Inspection Of Concerns Regarding DOE's Evaluation Of Chevron U.S.A's Unsolicited Proposal For The Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve
integrity of the Department of Energy’s (DOE) unsolicited proposal review process may have been compromised by the actions of a former Deputy Secretary of Energy and his Executive Assistant during the review of an unsolicited proposal received from Chevron U.S.A. Production Company (Chevron) in May 1993. The Chevron unsolicited proposal was for the management and operation of DOE’s Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve (Elk Hills), located near Bakersfield, California. Chevron submitted the unsolicited
proposal on May 19, 1993. DOE formally rejected Chevron’s unsolicited proposal in May 1995. Although Chevron’s unsolicited proposal was eventually rejected by DOE, the complainant
specifically alleged that the “sanctity, integrity, and sensitivity” of the unsolicited proposal review process had been breached in meetings during the Fall of 1993 between Chevron officials, the Deputy Secretary of Energy (Deputy Secretary), and his Executive Assistant. Based on our review of the allegation, we identified the following issue as the focus of our inspection:
Was the DOE review of the Chevron unsolicited proposal handled in accordance with the requirements of DOE Order 4210.9A, “UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS?”
proposal on May 19, 1993. DOE formally rejected Chevron’s unsolicited proposal in May 1995. Although Chevron’s unsolicited proposal was eventually rejected by DOE, the complainant
specifically alleged that the “sanctity, integrity, and sensitivity” of the unsolicited proposal review process had been breached in meetings during the Fall of 1993 between Chevron officials, the Deputy Secretary of Energy (Deputy Secretary), and his Executive Assistant. Based on our review of the allegation, we identified the following issue as the focus of our inspection:
Was the DOE review of the Chevron unsolicited proposal handled in accordance with the requirements of DOE Order 4210.9A, “UNSOLICITED PROPOSALS?”
Audit of Management of the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Audit of the Union Valley Sample Preparation Facility at Oak Ridge
In 1991, Lockheed Martin Energy Systems (Energy Systems) determined that new bioassay and environmental sampling laboratories were needed to meet increasing workload and staffing requirements. Energy Systems proposed and the Department of Energy (Department) approved a solicitation for a private company to construct a facility which Energy Systems would lease back
on behalf of the Department. Energy Systems entered into a lease for this purpose in August 1994 and moved into the facility in October 1995. We initiated this audit to determine if the Department’s acquisition of the Union Valley Sample Preparation Facility (UVSPF) was necessary and cost effective.
on behalf of the Department. Energy Systems entered into a lease for this purpose in August 1994 and moved into the facility in October 1995. We initiated this audit to determine if the Department’s acquisition of the Union Valley Sample Preparation Facility (UVSPF) was necessary and cost effective.