GAO Warns DOE Oversight Changes Could Raise Nuclear Project Risk

Why it Matters

The Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security Administration oversee more than $65 billion in construction and acquisition projects across the nation's nuclear enterprise. A new Government Accountability Office report examines ongoing efforts to streamline project management and warns that reducing independent oversight could weaken confidence in project cost estimates and delay the identification of performance problems.

The projects support the nation's nuclear weapons enterprise, scientific research and energy infrastructure. As DOE and NNSA pursue management reforms intended to improve efficiency, Congress faces questions about how to balance streamlined decision-making with independent oversight of major federal investments.

The Scale of DOE's Construction Portfolio

DOE and NNSA manage construction and acquisition work at 16 contractor-operated national laboratories and nuclear enterprise sites. As of January, the agencies were managing 80 capital asset projects with an estimated total cost of as much as $65.5 billion. The projects support nuclear weapons stewardship, scientific research and infrastructure modernization.

The portfolio spans multiple laboratories and facilities with complex technical requirements and long project timelines. According to the GAO, proposed management changes could affect 66 ongoing projects as well as future capital asset projects.

Delegating Authority and Reducing Oversight

DOE and NNSA have proposed streamlining project management by delegating more approval authority and limiting certain independent reviews. A March 2025 memorandum directed revisions to DOE's project management order that would increase delegated approval authority for projects estimated to cost up to $300 million and reduce independent reviews for projects estimated to cost between $300 million and $1 billion.

According to the GAO, agency officials said the changes could improve efficiency and reduce administrative burdens. However, the GAO found that reducing independent reviews could lessen confidence in cost and schedule estimates and delay the identification of project performance issues.

DOE Project Management Under Pressure

The GAO found that DOE's Office of Science has already delegated certain project approval authority to national laboratory directors employed by management and operating contractors, while NNSA is developing guidance for changes to independent reviews. As of March, officials said revisions to the underlying DOE order remained on hold, although some reforms had already been implemented.

The report notes that the reforms are too recent to determine their long-term effects but concludes that reducing independent oversight could make it more difficult to identify cost growth and schedule risks early in a project's life cycle.

The Contractor Role in Nuclear Sites Acquisition

All 16 of DOE's national laboratories and major nuclear sites are operated by management and operating contractors on the federal government's behalf. Under the proposed reforms, some approval authority would shift from federal officials to contractor-operated laboratories for qualifying projects.

The GAO did not conclude that contractors have mismanaged projects. Instead, it found that DOE and NNSA have not established agency wide goals, outcomes or performance measures to evaluate whether the management reforms improve efficiency while maintaining effective oversight.

National Laboratories management depends on federal oversight to ensure the public interest is protected. When that oversight is limited, the balance shifts toward contractor interests.

The GAO's Assessment

The Government Accountability Office published its report on July 16, recommending that DOE and NNSA establish specific goals, outcomes and performance measures to evaluate whether the project management reforms achieve their intended objectives. Both agencies agreed with the recommendations.

What Happens Next

The reissued GAO report lands as Congress grapples with broader questions about federal project management and oversight. Agencies across government face pressure to move faster and reduce costs. But speed without oversight has repeatedly proven costly. The Department of Energy nuclear enterprise is too important and too expensive to serve as a testing ground for untested management theories.

The question facing policymakers is whether the efficiency gains from delegation and reduced review justify the increased risk. For a $65.5 billion portfolio managing national security and energy infrastructure, the answer may not be straightforward. However, it requires honest debate about tradeoffs, not assumptions that streamlining automatically improves outcomes.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article