Detailed Information on the
National Nuclear Security Administration: Secure Transportation Asset (STA) Assessment

Continuing to improve the responsiveness of the Nuclear Weapons Complex Infrastructure by coordinating planned program activity with the Complex Transformation Strategy Record of Decision.

Continuing to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Nuclear Weapons Complex by integrating program requirements into the new Office of Defense Programs National Level Work Breakdown Structure (WBS).

Increase the number of accounts supporting this program to quicken the transfer of funds with contractors and increase management flexibility to address changing security conditions and mission priorities. This will significantly improve the obligation and costing process of funds.

Develop plans to correct known findings and establish an independent assessment branch in the organization to ensure more frequent independent evaluations.

Measure: Annual percentage of shipments completed safely and securely without compromise/loss of nuclear weapons/components or a release of radioactive material.

Explanation:

Measure: Annual number of secure convoys completed

Explanation:

Measure: Cumulative number of Safeguards Transporters (SGTs) in operation.

Explanation:

Measure: Cumulative number of Federal Agents at the end of each year.

Explanation:

Measure: Annual cost per convoy expressed in terms of millions of dollars.

Explanation:

Measure: Annual percentage of Unit Readiness to perform assigned convoy mission-weeks. (New measure, added February 2008)

Explanation:New metric focuses on Secure Transportation Asset's readiness to execute and perform the missions necessary to meet the aggressive schedule for material disposition and consolidation.

Measure: Annual percentage of Transportation Shipping Requests (TSRs) delivered by the scheduled delivery date.

Explanation:New metric focuses on Secure Transportation Asset's readiness to execute and perform the missions necessary to meet the aggressive schedule for material disposition and consolidation.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of Secure Transportation Asset (STA) is to safely and securely transport nuclear weapons, weapon components, and special nuclear materials to meet projected Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Defense (DoD), and other customer requirements.

Evidence: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Strategic Plan; Defense Programs (DP) annual planning guidance; DOE Order 461.1, Packaging and Transfer or Transportation of Materials of National Security Interest; & NNSA Budget/Future-Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: The program addresses the scheduling, safety, and security concerns associated with the movement of nuclear weapons and components in a public environment. The program mitigates the national security risks associated with the seizure and use of a shipment by adversarial groups and individuals.

Evidence: Congressional line item budget; NNSA Budget/FYNSP; STA Program and Implementation Plans;

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: No other agency, including the DoD, performs the full extent of the STA specialized work/mission. The program is designed to conduct shipments across state jurisdictions with nuclear materials couriers who have specialized training and federal authority. The shipments require the use of specialized trailers and vehicles, operated by carefully screened individuals who are rigorously and repeatedly trained on the various response situations.

Evidence: NNSA Budget/FYNSP & STA Program and Implementation Plans--DOE Orders drive mission responsibilities.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program is designed to be managed and executed by federal personnel and supported by contractors. This design addresses the full mission spectrum through specialized agent recruitment methods, development of unique and specialized training programs, and research, development, and design of state-of-the art command and control systems and equipment. The program was designed to bring all of the assets of a secure transportation system under one single manager that works closely with its predominant customer -- Defense Programs. A Departmental STA Advisory Board (STAAB) evaluates all potential shipments among competing customers and develops a priority list to ensure that national interests are met.

Evidence: NNSA Budget/FYNSP; STA Program and Implementation Plans; DOE Order 461.1 & STAAB Charter.

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The STA is organizationally aligned with Defense Programs, its primary customer. In the past, competing customers and departmental campaigns put the STA in the position of choosing which shipments would be deferred to another year or invoking extreme amounts of overtime. Now, a Departmental STA Advisory Board (STAAB) evaluates all potential shipments among competing customers and develops a priority list to ensure that national interests are met. Since the STA operates at full capacity and the STAAB sets the priority, any backlog that is present is only relevant to the optimum capacity that the STA should achieve. The STA manages the resources to obtain a mission capacity that provides a consistent level of safety and protection to all nuclear shipments.

Evidence: STAAB Charter; NNSA Budget/FYNSP; STA Program and Implementation Plans; & STA Functions Document.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The STA has 6 specific long-term measures that meaningfully assess progress in achieving the STA purpose. They are: (1) Increase the annual percentage of requested shipments completed to 90% by 2005; (2) Increase annual capacity to 150 convoys by 2009; (3) Produce 51 new Safeguards Transporters (SGT) by 2011; (4) Increase the number of Federal Agents to 420 by 2008; (5) maintain at least a 15 % optimization of requested workload; and (6) reduce overtime per federal agent to 800 hours by 2006. The measures are linked to the STA objective of optimizing the mission capacity to meet customer requirements.

Evidence: NNSA Budget/FYNSP; STA Program and Implementation Plans; STA Primavera Work Breakdown Structure; & STA Project Review List.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The STA long-term measures are ambitious and challenging in order to meet the significant increase in the number of transportation requirements in the outyears. The agent strength targets are set to compensate for projected losses and gradually ramp-up the force. The targets increase the force from 180 agents to 420. The SGT targets are also a gradual ramp-up, corresponding to the increased workload. The targets establishes a new fleet of 51 trailers. The optimization measure is ambitions because it assumes that efficiencies can be identified to increase convoy capacity. The convoy targets reflect the growth in mission capacity, 60 to 150 convoys.

Evidence: STA Program and Implementation Plan; STA Primavera Work Breakdown Structure; STA Project Review List; & NNSA Budget/FYNSP.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: A limited number of annual performance measures have been identified for STA that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals of the organization. The STA has specific annual measures that meaningfully assess progress in achieving the four STA long-term measures. For FY 2006, they are: (1) complete shipments for 90% of requested shipments; (2) Complete at least 120 convoys; (3) Increase Safeguards Transporter fleet to 37; (4) Attain at least 370 Federal Agents; (5) maintain an optimization percentage of 15; and (6) reduce overtime to 600 hours per agent on average. (See measures tab for other years measures.)

Evidence: STA Program and Implementation Plans; STA Primavera Work Breakdown Structure; STA Project Review List; & NNSA Budget/FYNSP.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Annual performance targets reflect qualifiable numbers and incremental steps that are based on actual experience and are clearly measurable. For convoys, the increase is based on additional agents, SGTs, and scheduling efficiencies. For agents, the increase is based on projected losses and the expected class size for new recruits. For SGTs, the increased is based on the production line and optimum fleet size. For shipment optimization, requested shipments are calculated to determine mission hours. After optimization, the actual mission hours are recorded when the shipment is complete. The decrease in mission hours represents the optimization percent. From the baseline calculated in FY02, the STA goal was to maintain an optimization percentage of 10% for FY2003. Based on the FY2003 results the outyears were increased to 15%.

Evidence: STA Program and Implementation Plans; STA Primavera Work Breakdown Structure; & STA Project Review List.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The program efforts carried out by the program partners [Federal employees, Support Contractors, and, for some activities, M&O Contractors] are directly tied to the program's annual and long-term performance measures. The customers of the program are external partners via the STAAB, where they aid the organization in optimizing shipping schedules through quarterly meetings. Program resources and schedules are integrated into supporting projects containing specific milestone and schedule data. Primavera Project Planning software is used for performance monitoring and measurement. The projects are organized by the STA objectives and strategies, and program partners are directly involved in the projects. Formal task agreements bind contractors to project performance. The annual and long-term measures transcend projects and strategies and provide an indicator for strategic objectives.

Evidence: NNSA Budget/FYNSP; STA Primavera Project Listing; STA Program and Implementation Plans & STAAB Minutes.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program has been surveyed in the functional areas of aviation, security, emergency management, operations, human reliability, cyber security, human resource operations, property, and safety; often annually, to ensure performance against requirements and to eliminate gaps and improve process and efficiencies. For example, independent security evaluations are conducted to test the security measures during shipments. These evaluations prompt revision to the Site Safeguards and Security Plan.

Evidence: DOE Orders; OST Policies & Standard Operating Procedures; Self-Assessment and Survey Program Documentation; Joint Testing Exercises; DOE Inspector General (IG), and Office of Oversight Assessment (OA) Independent Surveys of STA functions; & U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) audits;

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: STA's performance goals with annual targets cascade from the NNSA strategic plan, and also link to supporting milestones, deliverables, and budgets. Program performance measures provide information for the resource allocation decisions made in the annual Programming and Budgeting processes. The Budget and Reporting (B&R) categories for the STA Program are listed and linked to performance metrics. All direct and indirect costs to attain the performance results for the STA Program are reported in the B&R categories. The cost for the NNSA STA Federal employees is carried in a separate STA program direction account/sub-program, as required by the Congress. In the FY 2005 President's Budget, NNSA initiated a budget request format that includes the current 3 years plus 4 additional years of performance and budget information for each program ("GPRA Units") in the mainline budget justification document. Formerly, the outyear funding and performance targets were included in a separate document, the Future-Years Nuclear Security Program, provided with the budget request.

Evidence: NNSA PPBE guidance documents located on the NNSA web-site; NNSA Budget/FYNSP; NNSA FY 2004 PDM; STA Primavera Project Listing; & STA Project Review List.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The STA has taken several steps to address strategic planning deficiencies to include establishing a Headquarters Liaison Office to aid in the adoption of the PPBE process and assigning functional areas and individuals to specific areas of the PPBE process to insure timely compliance with all the required data submission deadlines. Federal Managers assigned to all projects are enrolled in project management & federal budget process training. Project Managers are held accountable for the planning, schedule, and cost of assigned projects. Program reviews held bi annually for all OST projects report on cost, schedule, and future goals of all OST projects. The OST has developed a formal system for evaluating its strategic planning process and any identified deficiencies or gaps. This system entails weekly budget and project reviews, quarterly readiness and capability briefings, and an annual program review. Identified deficiencies are addressed through the PPBE process and reallocation of funding is based on priorities. The STAAB is an example of correcting deficiencies. Since the STA operates at full. capacity and requests exceed that capacity, the STA was in the position of determining which customers would be served. Now, the STAAB sets the priority for shipping schedules.

Evidence: PPBES Schedule and Program Plan; STA primavera project/priority list; capability and readiness briefings; budget reports; & meeting minutes.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The OST currently has bi-monthly program reviews with Sandia National Laboratories and Honeywell/NM and quarterly reviews with Honeywell/Kansas City. At these reviews, costs and schedules are discussed in order to manage the projects. In addition, an annual assessment of various functional areas is performed as well as an independent review of the security function and over-the-road operations. This information if used to manage the program more effectively and continually improve performance.

Evidence: Sample of Quarterly Program Reviews: Honeywell/NM; Honeywell/KC; Self-Assessment Reports; Survey Reports; & STA Organizational Capability/Readiness Reviews, by division.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal Managers and program partners are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results by performance metrics in their annual appraisal plans that link to the program performance results. Contractors and partners are held accountable through work authorizations, project work plans, and award fees that link to program performance results. Integration is achieved via bimonthly reviews and the tracking of project data in the integrated Primavera Project management database, which compares the project target plan verses the project actual. This process provides regular and effective two-way communications between Federal Managers and their contractor counterparts.

Evidence: STA PRIMAVERA FY 2004 Project Listing; contract administration; Performance Measures in STA Operational/Implementation Plans; Performance Appraisal Plan; individual measures of performance; & task agreements.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: All funds are spent for the intended purpose but unobligated balances are high. Although the STA has obligated funds in a manner consistent with the type/status of the program it is--a government-owned organization, it is changing its methodology of sending funds to M&O contractors to achieve consistency with other programs of NNSA/Defense Programs. Funds currently transferred to M&O contractors on a quarterly basis will be changed to annually. This will significantly improve the timeliness of obligating funds in future years. Procurements will still be made through federal channels and are based on operational conditions and real-time priorities. The STA will be able to execute its budget in a manner to retain flexibility in light of changing security conditions and mission priorities.

Evidence: Uncosted and Cost Reports; monthly financial reports; & monthly budget meetings with budget representatives.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The STA performance plans include performance indicators and targets for each year from FY 2003-08 directly tied to the annual and long-term goals. Internal performance measurements include capability/readiness metrics; quarterly contractor reviews; and quarterly project scope, schedule and cost reviews. Internal surveys and self assessments are routinely conducted. Aggressive production schedules are continually monitored and supplemented by 6 Sigma analyses, time-motion studies, and quality reviews. Federal manpower efficiencies are a primary focus. Many of the mission support functions are performed by contractors & subcontractors, freeing agent man-hours for other secure convoys. For example, contractor drivers are used to move vehicles and trailers to their loading point and government aircraft are used to move agents to convoy starting locations and return them to their home station when a convoy is complete. There is also a process for optimizing shipping schedules, freeing additional agent man-hours.

Evidence: STA shipment & production schedules; personnel overtime records; time and time-motion studies; Bi-Weekly meetings with contractors and Federal Managers to discuss issues/concerns; Contract Award Process; and Change Control Process.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The STA collaborates extensively with its Department of Defense (DoD) and NNSA Defense Programs/HQ customers and with its M&O and support service contractor suppliers on production, planning, scheduling, operations, design, and training. The STAAB aids in the coordination process and is frequently tasked to solve shipping issues. A headquarters Liaison Office was established to aid in coordination efforts between programs.

Evidence: STAAB Charter

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: STA is covered by DOE's financial management policies, procedures, and practices that meet all statutory requirements. The accounting services for NNSA are provided by DOE and these are free of material internal control weaknesses. The DOE's financial statements have been given a clear audit opinion in 7 of the last 8 years. The STA Program staff reviews accounting reports on a monthly basis to monitor obligations and costs for all projects and sites.

Evidence: DOE Financial Management Orders; NNSA PPBE Guidance Documents located on the NNSA-Web site; internal OST policies/procedures; purchase requests; & credit card process.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The OST has taken several steps to address management deficiencies to include establishing a Headquarters Liaison Office to aid in the adoption of the PPBE process and assigning functional areas and individuals to specific areas of the PPBE process to insure timely compliance with all the required data submission deadlines. Federal Managers assigned to all projects are enrolled in project management & federal budget process training. Project Managers are held accountable for the planning, schedule, and cost of assigned projects. Program reviews held bi annually for all OST projects to report on cost and schedule and future goals of all OST projects. The organization also addresses management deficiencies when found in the form of corrective action plans as a result of the self assessment program and the survey program. Another example would be the creation of the STAAB. This was done when it was realized that not all customer needs could be satisfied.

Evidence: Organizational structure and specific position descriptions; project assignments and training; STA self assessment and survey reports and corrective action plans; & STA readiness/capability reviews.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: STA has been very successful in improving its capability/capacity to meet an increasing percentage of customer's annual transport needs. In FY2004, the program is on-track to meet 85% of transport needs vs. only 80% in Fy2003. Especially instrumental has been the progress toward more than doubling the number of secure convoys (78 in FY 2003), despite a re-baselining after 9/11, that required twice the prior resources for each convoy. The initiative to increase capacity was formulated through strategic planning in 2001 and 2002. Plans & budget forecasts were revised to support the infrastructure and support systems to enable the increase in capacity. Since there are many sub-systems and interdependencies associated with a convoy, all support systems must be fully integrated as change is introduced. Agent numbers continue to increase (to 248 in FY 2003) despite a large number of mandatory retirements and buyouts. Safeguard Transporter production (to 28 in FY 2003) is on a pace to correspond with the increase in missions.

Evidence: Performance Measure Targets/Results evidenced in the NNSA Budget/FYNSP & STA Program and Implementation Plans.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The STA met the annual target for SGT production and number of convoys. The number of agents was slightly below target due to a backlog in security clearance processing and a loss of agents to Homeland Security. There are 254 agent on-board now with a target of 280 by the end of the fiscal year. Based on the delays in processing investigations, future targets were adjusted to more realistic numbers. The optimization measure was baselined in 2002 and exceeded the target of 10%. The initiative to increase capacity was formulated through strategic planning in 2001 and 2002.

Evidence: STA Program and Implementation Plans; STA Project Reviews; quarterly contractor reviews; completion of shipments; and STA record of management of annual objectives.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The STA demonstrated improved efficiencies by achieving its 4 strategic objectives for 2003. Production and schedule targets are reviewed quarterly to ensure program targets are met. Shipment schedules are developed and tracked to ensure timely completion to meet customer requirements. Surveys and self assessments determine the need for improvements that are tracked to completion. The STA meets production schedules for vehicles and other systems; performs analyses using 6 Sigma teams, time motion studies, and quality reviews to improve efficiencies in production and operation; and uses contractor quarterly reviews, surveys, self assessments, implementation plans, and production schedules. STA has been building armored class tractors for 3 years. During this time, time studies were performed to reduce labor hours for assembly. As a result, STA realized a reduction from an initial man-hour requirement of over 1600 hours per unit to less than 1000. This approach is being used for escort vehicle production that started in FY 2002. Final efficiencies for these vehicles are still being determined, but we have seen a similar improvement. STA also builds Safeguard Transporters (SGTs), 40-foot trailers with specialized design and operation features. This effort began in 1998 and continues to be on schedule (4 trailers per year) and on budget. The cost per trailer has been maintained since 1998 when the first trailer was built at a cost of $2.7M. Costs have only increased due to inflation. Time motion studies are in process to see if additional efficiencies can be realized. The continuing STA objective is to produce specific numbers of vehicles while decreasing production costs and schedules was obtained. In addition to the above, The STA has increased its number of convoys and the amount of training to agents, while continuing to decrease overtime.

Evidence: STA Shipment Schedules; OST overtime records; OST time and time motion studies; STA escort vehicle production and Safeguard Transporter schedules; & OST convoy scheduling records.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: No other agency has a similar purpose or goals. Occasionally, DoD will transport weapons to their permanent facility, but these moves rely on large numbers of resources to compensate for potential threats.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: [[[Evaluations are not recent]]] Independent external evaluations of STA security, emergency management, aviation, property, Joint Testing Exercises, and other critical areas have been generally but not completely favorable. For example, during a safeguards & security evaluation 3 topical areas were found to be effective; however there were 6 findings. Also, an emergency management evaluation board found 6 areas to be effective and 4 areas that required improvement. The STA aviation and Joint Technical Operations Team functions are evaluated on a yearly basis. Overall, STA has shown a decrease in the number of issues and the level of criticality of findings, indicating that it is becoming more effective & efficient in achieving results. This is consistent with the self assessment program, in effect for several years, that has resulted in a decreased number of findings/negative observations overall, particularly in areas critical to mission accomplishment. When an external evaluation determined that a specific mission capability needed to be available/improved, a "Goalpost Plan" was executed to quickly create that capability. A follow-up inspection validated the plan and the capability.

Evidence: Independent survey reports by the DOE IG and Office of Oversight Assessment (OA), & GAO, as validated by STA self assessment reports, corrective action plans, and contractor quality assurance results. Report examples: Independent Safeguards and Security Follow-up Inspection of the TSD, December 10, 1999; and DOE/IG-0605, Inspection of National Nuclear Security Administration's Ability to Meet the Aircraft Requirements of the Joint Technical Operations Team, June 2003.