It’s not clear when, or if, the National Nuclear Security Administration intends to release the fiscal 2015 performance evaluation reports for its contractors. Posting of the reports is already overdue and the NNSA has given mixed signals about its plans.
Outside of targeted audits and investigations by the Department of Energy’s Office of Inspector General and Office of Enterprise Assessments, the PERs are generally the most revealing looks annually of contractor operations within the nuclear security enterprise.
In the case of Consolidated Nuclear Security, the government’s managing contractor at the Y-12 and Pantex nuclear weapons plants, the wait has been even longer. That’s because CNS took over management of the plants on July 1, 2014, so the contractor’s first report card will assess its work for the final three months of fiscal 2014 as well as all of fiscal 2015.
In a December message to employees, then-CNS President Jim Haynes noted that the NNSA had informed the contractor that it had received a performance score of 57 out of 100. He called the result “disappointing” and lower than expected, and said the contractor would try to meet the NNSA’s expectations in the future. But there was no explanation for the reasons for the low score.
It’s not clear whether Haynes would have revealed that information at the time if he’d known the NNSA did not plan to release the evaluation reports soon thereafter. According to obtained DOE fee documents, CNS received $42.6 million in fees for that 15-month period.
News organizations, as well as activist groups, including Nuclear Watch New Mexico and the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, have reportedly filed requests for the performance evaluation reports via the Freedom of Information Act.
Shelley Laver, a spokeswoman at NNSA headquarters in Washington, said in December that she anticipated the reports being released in early January. More recently, Laver said on March 8 that it was NNSA’s intention to release the reports and said she hoped that would happen in the “coming weeks.” However, she did not offer a specific timetable.
Last week, Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, provided a copy of a response he received from a FOIA officer at the NNSA’s office in Albuquerque, N.M., regarding his FOIA request for the reports.
In that response, Karen Laney, a government information specialist, wrote: “NNSA’s Office of Acquisition & Project Management has advised the FOIA office that they expect to release the PERs in early July 2016.”
If that date proves correct, the reports would land on the two-year anniversary of CNS taking over management of the Y-12 and Pantex facilities under the oversight of the NNSA Production Office.
In his earlier message to employees, Haynes noted that the CNS evaluation did not include a review of the big project under development: the Uranium Processing Facility at Y-12. That is to be analyzed separately.
When asked for a release on the performance on UPF, NNSA Production Office spokesman Steven Wyatt said: “UPF does not have the same type of performance evaluation process as what exists for the CNS contract for operating Y-12. UPF project performance is focused on cost and schedule incentives rather than award fee.”
Asked if the NNSA would publicly release information on the UPF performance, regarding costs and schedules, Wyatt responded, “We have no further comment.”
