Introduction/Background
|
Contractor |
DOE Office |
|
|
Date of last assessment: October 2001
Laboratory Mission
The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) is dedicated to experimental and theoretical research in elementary particle physics and in those fields that make use of its synchrotron radiation facilities, including biology, chemistry, geology, material science and electrical engineering. This includes the development of new techniques in particle acceleration and detection and of synchrotron radiation sources and associated instrumentation. Stanford University operates the center as a national user facility for the Department of Energy.
Organizational Mission
Identification of Self-Assessment Report Staff
Robert Strohecker, Budget Officer; Evan Economos, Teri Peterson, and Ron Kirkland, Financial Analysts
Discussion of Individual Performance Objectives
Performance Objective #2 Financial Stewardship
Quality Budget Formulation & Effective Budget Execution
Performance Criterion: 2.1
Budgets are submitted timely.
Performance Measure Result
The FY2004 Budget Request was submitted on time, following directions, considering uncosted balances in requesting new budget authority, and 20% of the budget submission was validated; consequently this measure achieved a rating of “Excellent.”
The laboratory director had a “kickoff” budget meeting on January 31 to discuss the basic programmatic assumptions upon which to build the request. The Budget Office provided planning rates for fringe benefits, leave accruals, and indirect rates for procurement, G&A, Common Site Support (CSS). On February 15th the Budget Office issued a call to the Directorate for the Field Task Proposal Agreement (FTPA) written materials, and also included was the FY2004 Budget Request Preparation Schedule. The Budget Office worked closely with each of the division planners as they developed their respective budget details. This year was again a little different than last year because the budget guidance (including some new requirements) was delayed until late March. Given the President’s budget, the laboratory needed more time than usual to decide what to request for FY2003 before the FY2004 request year could be finalized.
Once available it was again helpful to be able to obtain the DOE Budget Guidance off the WEB. The Office also kept the Oakland Budget Office appraised as to the progress in completing the request especially with respect to the new infrastructure crosscut.
The DOE/Oak Budget Liaison for SLAC visited on August 7 to validate that SLAC had properly and accurately completed the submittal. A discussion of the SLAC budgeting process took place, and copies of internal guidance were provided as well as copies of the Business Services Division and Directors Office budget details tracking its budget submittal up to its inclusion in the summary of estimates. The goal of validating at least 20% of the budget submission dollars was successfully achieved. Part of the budgeting process includes almost daily contact with the division planners answering questions, checking status of budget development, and providing further guidance as required. Division budget targets as decided by the Laboratory Directorate guided the inputs; consequently if the division submittals are close to the expected targets, the Budget Office’s responsibility to assure reasonableness is made easier. The Office reviews the relative size of the cost categories of SLAC labor, non-shop contract labor, shop services, and materials & services. The Office also concentrates its review on the year-to-year changes. Since Business Services and Director’s Office are almost all indirect in nature, there is minimal change from year to year. SLAC’s indirects have been maintained at a minimal level for many years and represent an achievement for scientific research here at the Laboratory. One point of significance in the Director’s Office was the creation of a new position, Director of Communications. A few extra steps were needed to ensure his FY04 budget was properly requested. Such things as additional staff, annualization of new hires, and special materials and services needs had to be properly stated.
Performance Criterion: 2.2
Manage Uncosted Balances
Performance Measure Result 2.2a
Reduce or maintain uncosted balances within the criteria established by the DOE
Performance Gradient:
For FY2002 total uncosted balances came in at $45,617K versus Obligations of $213,853K for a ratio of 21.3%. When these results are adjusted to exclude line item construction, work for others, and reimbursables to meet the performance measure definition, the corresponding numbers are uncosted balances of $35,172K and obligations of $208,980K for a ratio of 16.8%. These uncosted balances have been reduced by over $7M from last year’s level, and the percentage requiring justification dropped 10.1 percentage points. Only $1,998K of uncosted balances or 5.7% of the total uncosted, exceeded the threshold and will require justification. As a final note the awareness of “uncosted balances” has permeated the Laboratory to a large degree. In addition, years of tight budgets have also lead to declining uncosted balances.
The FY2001 uncosted balance report was submitted on time and required no revisions due to inaccuracies. All division financial planners have access to the SLAC cost system for checking the status of costs for all their activities and creating reports for their division managers. In addition, the Budget Office produces a monthly report tracking costs against funding and budgets, tracking funding received and expected, tracking FTEs, and tracking limited funded accounts.
This performance warrants a rating of “Outstanding”.
Performance Criterion: 2.3
Costs and commitments of all programs, including cost of work for others and work for others including reimbursable work are managed properly.
Performance Measure Result: 2.3a
Ensure costs and commitments are properly reported and within DOE authorized funding levels.
Performance Gradient:
Costs and commitments of all programs were within the DOE authorized funding levels.
During this past year working with the BIS system has continued to become more routine. The emphasis of the Budget Office has been to improve the reporting capabilities and the number of reports available from the new system. As mentioned in last year’s self-assessment the number of “limited funded” activities has continued to grow this year as well. However, a report tracking the status of all individual orders in the Reimbursable area was created and used to facilitate the monthly close. For year-end FY02 a report containing all “limited funded” activities, as defined by the Laboratory, was formally included in the “monthly report.” These two reports help to ensure that costs and commitments are properly reported. The Budget Office continues to provide training on to internal laboratory customers on the financial system, budget requirements, and proposal requirements. As stated above, the monthly report is the document used to track costs against control levels. At SLAC there are between 30 and 40 major OCL levels and two to three times that many levels in the reimbursable and “special funding” categories. In addition, projects are tracked by project against its budget level monthly to ensure project control levels are not exceeded.
This measure is rated “Outstanding” given the clean record of the past year and the completion of two reports needed to track “limited funded” activities.
Problem Analysis
Improvement Action Plan/Goals
A significant effort was expended to complete the set of “attributes” which will aid in producing more and more useful reports. In addition significant efforts were expended to implement the new B&R codes in High Energy Physics for FY03. With the High Energy Physics B&R codes doubling and continuous clarification of the nature of the activities to be captured by each B&R, several iterations were necessary to accomplish this effort, originally thought to be implemented in FY04.
Goals for FY03
The Office will continue to be more supportive in providing important information to the laboratory and work to provide more useful financial status on a monthly basis. The Office will participate in a couple of process improvement initiatives as directed by the Internal Policies and Procedures (IPAP) committee initiated by the Laboratory Director. Finally, tools to improve reporting and retrieving of data will continue to be improved.
Summary Conclusions
In the past year the Office has been able to respond to the new Infrastructure crosscut requirement, the submittal of several Line Item proposals, and various ad hoc requests from Headquarters and internal to the Laboratory, as well. In addition, more detailed cost information and information on FTEs are now available on a monthly basis. The Office has been able to support the division planning staffs in meeting their needs and goals.
Note: Primary budget materials submitted on the due date of 4/26/02; Supplementary materials submitted 2 days early, 5/1/02; Infrastructure crosscut submitted on the due date of 5/3/02.
For Questions or comments, Please contact Ziba Mahdavi, Last Updated 10/30/02