DOE's performance on projects and assessed the organizations and procedures by which they are carried out. The objectives of this study, which were established in the 105th Committee of Conference Report on Energy and Water Development are to (1) review and assess the processes used by DOE and its contractors to identify project requirements, develop scopes of work, execute and manage designs, prepare cost estimates, select contract types, and execute and manage environmental restoration, waste management, and construction projects; (2) assess the level of oversight and experience of personnel in field offices and at DOE headquarters; (3) analyze the effectiveness of current DOE practices and recommend improvements; and (4) recommend guidelines for management and contracting that would help DOE establish an overall departmental process with more control of projects to reduce cost and schedule overruns. In the collective opinion of the committee, if DOE acts upon the findings and recommendations of this report, project performance would be significantly improved.

The fundamental deficiency is DOE's organization and culture, which do not provide a focus for project management. As a result, the processes used by field offices, operations offices, and their contractors for planning and executing projects are inconsistent; lessons learned about cost estimating techniques, project review processes, change control mechanisms, and performance metrics are not transferred from one project to another; and there is no systematic program for recruiting and training professional project managers and no career path for project management. Related fundamental problems are a general lack of accountability and unclear lines of authority. The areas of authority of field and operations offices, contractors (who perform most of DOE's work), and DOE headquarters programs are complex and overlapping. Problems vary by location, reflecting the influence of local management and local contractors.

Although DOE has attempted to address these problems, in the view of many people inside and outside of DOE (including this committee), it has not succeeded. The creation of the Office of Field Management might have become the basis for an effective DOE project management organization, but the office took on only an advisory and oversight function, essentially as an advocate for the field offices with DOE headquarters. The Contract Reform Initiative (intended to increase competition and accountability in DOE project acquisition through new approaches to project financing and contracting) was a positive step that has some successes to its credit, but it has not achieved substantive or consistent results. The adoption of the recommendations from the National Research Council Phase I report to implement independent external project reviews, and the recent establishment of internal project reviews in the major program offices could become an important tool for continued improvements.

The committee compared DOE's project management practices with the standard practices used by private industry and other government agencies and found that DOE falls far short of best practices in a number of areas: