An Office of Science project to consolidate alarm stations and save money at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the East Tennessee Technology Park and the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge Office could end up costing the government money, DOE’s
Inspector General said yesterday. The IG said the Office of Science—often lauded for its project management acumen—failed to follow key project management tools on the project, which could end up costing more than $1 million in additional annual costs to the government. Most notably, the IG said the Office of Science didn’t develop economic analyses for the consolidated project or total project cost estimates, and failed to ensure that the project wouldn’t leave security gaps. “Without the customary and fundamental information provided by an economic analysis and a security impact assessment, management was unable to make an informed decision as to whether the project was a good use of taxpayer dollars or even necessary,” the IG said.
During the IG’s investigation, Oak Ridge National Laboratory asked the Office of Science to terminate the project, and the IG said the federal manager of the Oak Ridge Site Office called the project a “failed experiment” in a June 9 memorandum. Nonetheless, the Office of Science directed the project to continue, calling for an Independent Validation Review of the project to be performed in October to “ensure that the project is adequately planned and executed.”
That review determined that there were no capability gaps in central alarm station operations, and Science has embarked on a more detailed review of safeguards and security requirements and potential alternatives for a mission need statement and acquisition strategy. “Until this evaluation is complete, SC does not intend to pursue CAS [central alarm station] consolidation activities; however, if an when efficiencies are expected from such actions, we will move forward” using DOE project management principles, Office of Science Deputy Director for Field Operations Joseph McBrearty said in a Dec. 5 response that accompanied the IG report.
