Followup Review of Major System Acquisitions and Major Projects


Book Description

In 1985, we reviewed the Department's procedures and practices for managing and controlling its major acquisition program, both for major systems and major projects. The 1985 review resulted in the identification of significant deficiencies. We found, for example, deficiencies relating to documentation and reporting requirements for major acquisitions. The purpose of this review was to determine if this condition had been corrected. The review included an examination of applicable laws, Executive Orders, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars, and Department policies. We examined key documents prepared for major acquisitions and reviewed reports used by senior Departmental officials to monitor these projects. Our audit was based primarily on a limited review of documentation available at Department of Energy (DOE) Headquarters. We did not extend our review of the issues raised in this report because we concluded that the management of major acquisitions was of such importance to the Department at this time that expedited reporting was needed.







Major System Acquisitions


Book Description




Major System Acquisitions


Book Description




Department of Energy Can Improve Management of the Acquisition of Major Projects


Book Description

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-109 directs Federal agencies to develop guidance to manage their major system acquisitions. The Department of Energy (DOE) has spent more than 2 years developing directives in accordance with OMB Circular A-109 and recently issued the final directives for its major systems. These systems are very costly, complex projects. GAO reviewed the development and procurement of such projects to find out what problems remain. GAO found that DOE had not adequately identified its mission areas. Major headquarters offices did not prepare mission analyses to identify and set priorities for the agency's requirements. DOE management lacked total commitment to support project management, thereby limiting the role and authority of the project manager. This was evidenced by the limited number of approved project manager charters, project plans, and project management plans. In addition, the project manager generally operates under two levels of authority; a field operations manager and the Washington headquarters manager. The review and evaluation of major system acquisitions by the DOE advisory board was limited because pertinent documentation, such as independent cost estimates, approved project plans, and project management plans, was missing.
















DOE this Month


Book Description