| Contractor |
DOE Office |
|
|
Date of last assessment: October 2001
Departmental Overview
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. The Center is operated as a national user facility for the Department of Energy by Stanford University.
Organizational Mission
The Site Engineering and Maintenance Department (SEM) provides maintenance and repair of all SLAC buildings, grounds, utilities and provides hoisting and rigging services. We do not provide assistance with phones, computers, power supplies, vending and food services. The Site Engineering and Maintenance Department normally funds routine maintenance and repair. However, modifications or activities other than routine maintenance may require separate funding by the requestor.
Identification of Self-Assessment Report Staff
Names, titles, affiliations of participants
Burl Skaggs, Site Engineering & Maintenance
Discussion of Individual Performance Objectives
Performance Objective: 1.0 Real Property Management
The laboratory will effectively manage real property. (Total Weight = 17%)
Performance Criterion: 1.1 Real Property Management
Real Property is effectively managed consistent with mission requirements and DOE direction.
Performance Measure: 1.1.a Program Implementation (Weight: 17%)
Number of completed milestones/milestones scheduled for completion.
Performance Assumption:
Intent is to measure the effectiveness, completeness, and timeliness of implementation of Real Property management actions. Milestones will be established in partnership with DOE and made a matter of record in the first month of the fiscal year. Milestones may be established for Facilities Information Management System (FIMS) completeness, office space utilization, substandard building space conversion, real property leases, etc.
Performance Gradient:
Outstanding: 0.900 or greater
Excellent: 0.800 to less than 0.900
Good: 0.700 to less than 0.800
Marginal: 0.600 to less than 0.700
Unsatisfactory: less than 0.600
Milestones/Objectives:
SLAC continues to support the existing assurance plan. Update completed this FY for improved format and clarity.
Complete; input being reviewed per latest mandate.
Meetings were held with SLAC management, DOE site, and regional staff to outline requirements, coordinate work between affected departments, and determine method of SLAC compliance. Third quarter data elements have been input.
Continuing to review previously submitted data.
Developing matrix to coordinate between various existing databases.
Revised calculation using all potentially useable space indicates 117 square feet per person. GSA allows 125 square feet per person, so we are reviewing our range for the next fiscal year.
Funds have been acquired to demolish several structures, and approval has been granted to construct a replacement research yard building during the next three years.
Buildings 109, 111, 125, 133, 232, 265, 291, 295, 296, 297, and 404 have been funded from excess property budget for demolition this fiscal year. Approximately 5000 square feet of existing office space has been renovated.
The University arborist has completed survey of all non-accelerator areas.
Six out of seven milestones 100% completed, item 5 not within range for a .85 score and Excellent rating.
Performance Objective: 2.0 Project Management (Total Weight = 15%)
Performance Criterion: 2.1 Facility Construction Projects
Facility construction projects with total project cost greater than or equal to $500K are completed on cost, schedule, and technical baseline.
Performance Measure: 2.1.a (Weight: 8%)
Number of milestones completed on schedule/number of milestones planned.
Performance Assumption:
The intent is to measure actual progress against that planned for the fiscal year and for the Laboratory to execute facility construction projects within budget. A milestone list for all active projects will be negotiated with DOE at the time that each project is submitted to DOE. Only significant milestones will be listed, but each active project will have at least one milestone. Project completion is based upon beneficial occupancy or beneficial use. By mutual agreement between the Laboratory and DOE, final evaluation may be adjusted because of changes to project final cost, for late/early completion, and/or for increased/diminished scope. DOE/SSO may approve changes to project milestones due to changes in Laboratory funding priorities, programmatic schedules, or delays due to uncontrollable forces, as it relates to this performance measure.
Performance Gradient:
Outstanding: 1.00
Excellent: equal to or greater than 0.90 and less than 1.00
Good: equal to or greater than 0.80 and less than 0.90
Marginal: equal to or greater than 0.70 and less than 0.80
Unsatisfactory: less than 0.70
Finding:
All projects on the attached list have been completed except for Campus Cooling Tower Utilities, which was not funded and was delayed due to higher priority projects.
As the funding decision for Campus Cooling Tower Utilities was an approved change, this category receives an Outstanding rating.
Performance Criterion: 2.2 Construction Project Cost
Line Item project Research Office Building meets cost baselines.
Performance Measure: 2.2.a Total Estimated Cost (TEC) (Weight: 7%)
Actual costs during the fiscal year/planned costs during the fiscal year.
Performance Assumption:
The intent is to measure Laboratory performance in executing projects within the approved TEC. The baseline TEC may be adjusted for allowed cost or work scope changes, Baseline Change Proposals, DOE directed changes, uncontrolled forces, or changes in programmatic schedules. If TEC is exceeded, the rating will be determined based on the reason and severity of the cost overrun for the project.
Performance Gradient:
Outstanding: less than or equal to 0.99
Excellent: greater than 0.99 and less than 1.00
Good: equal to 1.00
Marginal: greater than Total Estimated Cost
Unsatisfactory: greater than Total Estimated Cost
Finding:
Project has received CD-4 approval and 99.6% of the allocated funds have been spent for an Outstanding rating.
Performance Objective: 3.0 Maintenance Management
The Laboratory will maintain capital assets to ensure reliable operations in a safe and cost-effective manner. (Total Weight = 40%)
Facility operations and maintenance are effectively managed consistent with mission, risks, and costs.
Sum of completion percentages for all milestones worked/milestones scheduled for completion.
Performance Assumption:
The intent is to measure the effectiveness and timeliness of the Laboratory’s facility maintenance program. A list of mutually agreed milestones will be made a matter of record within the first month of the fiscal year. For multiple-facility milestones, completion percentage will be an average of the completion percentages for each facility included in the milestone. If no milestones are selected for the fiscal year, the weight of performance Measure 3.1.a will be added to Performance Measure 3.2.a.
Performance Gradient:
Outstanding: 0.90
Excellent: 0.80
Good: 0.70
Marginal: 0.60
Unsatisfactory: less than 0.60
We are in the process of evaluation for purchase an enhanced preventative maintenance system. Maintenance planner has been added to the staff to finalize program and begin implementation next FY.
New computers were installed and network was upgraded. Software upgrade has been completed. System was limited by age of controllers and slow baud rate capability. Software upgrade has greatly improved operation and tracking. The oldest hardware will be replaced as funds become available.
Work continues in detailed design of required building modifications. Project has been funded and is planned for completion in April 03.
a. Higher priority shall be given to SEM supervisors to complete Employee training Assessments.
Supervisors reminded at start of third quarter as part of performance evaluation process, ongoing review by SE&M safety officer.
b. SEM will revise the Pre-Work Safety Checklist to identify hazards.
Form completed in first quarter, Approved by ES&H and Purchasing.
c. Lock and Tag procedures will be reviewed with all SEM workers.
Meetings completed for review and development of ongoing inspection/review program.
d. SEM work authorization processes shall be formalized and documented.
Construction permit proposed awaiting approval from site construction office within ES&H division. The permit was approved, and we are awaiting the implementation.
e. Hoisting and Rigging Committee shall be reminded to become a more active resource by improving communication and actively eliciting inputs.
Chairman contacted to increase communications. Dedicated rigging inspector has been hired, rigging program undergoing complete review.
Seven of seven milestones completed for an outstanding rating.
The facility maintenance program is effectively managed and performed.
Performance Measure: 3.2.a Maintenance Index (Weight: 20%)
Performance index based on selected Maintenance Performance Indicators.
Performance Assumption:
A composite index will be calculated using a weighted average for selected performance indicators. The list of performance indicators and the calculation algorithm will be made a matter of record within the first month of the fiscal year. Performance gradient calculations will consider Best-in-Class for comparable Energy Facility Contractors Group (EFCOG) benchmarking participants and the EFCOG average for comparable activities/sites.
Performance Gradient:
Outstanding: 0.90
Excellent: 0.80
Good: 0.70
Marginal: 0.60
Unsatisfactory: less than 0.60
| Element | WT % | Ave. | Best | SLAC | % | Score |
| 1. PMs completed on schedule | 20 | 73.08 | 96.8 | 83.2 | .89 | |
| 2. Janitorial costs | 20 | 1.63 | 0.82 | 1.25 | .84 | |
| 3. Direct facility maintenance costs | 20 | 3.83 | 1.83 | 1.73 | 1.0 | |
| 4. Roads and grounds maintenance costs | 20 | 2092 | 633 | 3295 | .47 | |
| 5. Total Annual Maintenance Costs | 20 | 1.02 | .55 | .76 | .86 |
Performance Objective: 4.0 Energy Management
(Total Weight = 11%)
Performance Criterion: 4.1 Use Energy Efficiently
Performance Measure: 4.1.a (Weight: 11%)
Current fiscal year energy goals accomplished/goals scheduled to be accomplished in accordance with the multi- year energy management plan.
The Laboratory will maintain a multi-year energy management plan, consistent with the thirteen statutory and Executive Order requirements in DOE 430.2. The plan will be negotiated and will be made a matter of record within three months of an approved budget for the FY02 fiscal year. Annual goals will include an update of the energy management plan, quarterly reporting of energy use, DOE directed initiatives and an annual report on in- house energy management. Goals may be revised during the year by mutual agreement between the laboratory and DOE/OAK.
Performance Gradient:
Outstanding: 0.950 or greater
Excellent: 0.850 to 0.949
Good: 0.750 to 0.849
Marginal: 0.600 to 0.749
Unsatisfactory: less than 0.600
Seventeen of nineteen milestones completed for a .89 score yielding an Excellent rating.
Performance Objective: 5.0 Physical Assets Planning
(Total Weight = 17%)
Performance Criterion: 5.1 Comprehensive Integrated Planning Process
The Laboratory develops, documents, and maintains a comprehensive, integrated planning process that is aligned with SLAC mission needs.
Performance Measure: 5.1.a (Weight: 17%)
Assess how the planning process is implemented to achieve maximum effectiveness in anticipating and articulating DOE and Laboratory Needs. Integrate the space planning office into the process.
Performance Assumption:
The planning process is executed to achieve maximum effectiveness in anticipating and articulating DOE and Laboratory needs. SLAC will document the major planning activities with associated milestones within the first month of the fiscal year.
Performance Gradient:
The adjectival rating will be determined by a combination of criteria: a) impact of process improvements throughout the year; b) successful development of a work plan (milestones); c) the successful execution of the work plan, and; d) other planning and land use activities throughout the fiscal year.
Outstanding: 0.900 or greater
Excellent: 0.800 to 0.899
Good: 0.700 to 0.799
Marginal: 0.600 to 0.699
Unsatisfactory: less than 0.600
FY02 Milestones/Objectives:
1. Integrate “Comprehensive Site plan” and “Institutional Plan” information into simplified Comprehensive Site Plan document.
Draft document completed and draft distributed for comments in the third quarter. The goal of eliminating the duplication of content in this document has been accomplished. Final editing and distribution will be determined by second quarter of next FY. It may be proposed to further modify the content of this document based on the role of an upcoming Long Range Plan and the Institutional Plan.
2. Educate University Technical Representatives, Building Managers, Purchasing, and Associate Directors to notify Space Planning whenever buildings are modified.
Associate Directors have been briefed; building manager training syllabus includes space-planning requirements. Several classes have been held.
Completed.
3. Update Key plans for buildings as needed and make available online.
Drafter has been hired to complete this task. Approximately 45% of the site has been completed this year. Key plans are now available online through the document control system.
4. Create and implement an online Building Modification Form.
Completed. The form is available online.
5. Improve accuracy of the SLAC Site plan using GPS system.
A GPS implementation program is currently in progress. Procurement and delivery of two receiving stations and a base station is complete. The base station has been permanently installed. Set-up and testing is underway. Calibration to known North American positions is almost complete. Working standards and a master site grid is being developed. Upon completion of this stage, the phase in of GPS technologies to the SLAC environment will occur. Standards development and technology implementation will be a developing process concurrent with the working system. Surveys have been done to the PEP road alignment and underground piping in select areas. We are starting to utilize this system for common survey work.
6. Integrate with Stanford Campus planning office to share site data as much as practicable.
As part of Long Range Development plan numerous documents have been shared. Notably we have resolved the alignment difference between campus and SLAC data and have integrated both sites.
7. Distribute revised site plans and advise staff that it is available on request.
First revised plan has been distributed. The schedule distribution is twice a year on Jan 1st, and June 1st. Plan consists of a building location map with legend.
8. Integrate Long Range Plan into planning criteria when revised plan becomes available.
Long Range Plan is not yet available. Various draft sections have been reviewed and are back to campus for review and incorporation into a final draft. Implementation portion is strongly worded to require incorporating long range requirements into future building projects.
Seven of eight items essentially complete for an overall score of .875 and an Excellent rating.
Documentation: Project Milestones
For Questions or comments, Please contact Ziba Mahdavi, Last Updated 10/04/02