[jjk166]

This is an excellent example of how to communicate investigation findings. The summary is clear and succinct, there are illustrative examples readily understood by a layman, the recommendations are actionable and unambiguous, and the potential impact is quantified without promising some stupidly precise estimate. I've got some customers whose quality auditors could learn a lot from this.

[chris_va]

To play devil's advocate, the counter argument is that it's always easy to advocate for more process, and cherry pick examples to support that conclusion.

The actual report basically says that the DOE already requires that they "should identify a need without having a particular solution already in mind", so it is really just an argument that people should follow the written guidelines, and add more process to make sure it happens. The examples in the report are pretty nuanced.

[bruckie]

That's about what I would expect from an organization named Government Accountability Office: hold the government accountable to its written guidelines (or at least report on how well it's doing at meeting them).

[chris_va]

Yeah. I don't think the conclusion is necessarily wrong or that they shouldn't have investigated, but I also think the cost to the taxpayers might increase due to the underlying nuance. The report implies that the guidelines are correct, but doesn't really quantify the counterfactual.

Again, devil's advocate

[jjk166]

It is not the Auditor's job to determine that the rules are optimal, it is only to determine whether they are being followed. Presumably when the rule was instated someone had good reason to believe it would be beneficial; and if someone makes a compelling argument that following the rule is not beneficial, it should be repealed, not ignored.

[chris_va]

GAO's task is a bit broader, no?

[ortusdux]

Unless I'm missing something, footnote #20 at the end of the 43 page report significantly undercuts their argument. It is easy to make a clear and succinct report that comes to the conclusion you want.

[jjk166]

I don't see how it undercuts their argument. At best it means the DOE was following the spirit of their standards and the mission need statement was simply created later in the process than it should have been. It's still questionable though whether that prior planning actually considered and evaluated options as open-mindedly as if it had been done by the appropriate process.