Property Management

The Property Control functional area received an overall rating of outstanding in the FY 2001 Annual Appraisal. Gradients have been established and agreed upon for the measurement of inventory performance. Our self-assessment team identified areas of opportunity for enhanced performance and will address those areas in the following report.

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 1) particle acceleration and detection and 2) 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 Property Control and Warehouse Services Group within Business Services Division is responsible for the control of the government property in SLAC’s possession. This includes marking incoming property, the inventory of equipment and sensitive property, record initiation for property items, operation of the salvage and warehouse function with responsibility for property disposal. Site security and Transportation are not included in this function. DOE/Oakland last approved the SLAC Personal Property Management System on February 4, 2002.

Performance Criteria 1.1: Equipment Inventory. The Laboratory shall conduct successful equipment inventories as established in its Inventory Plan. Property accountability records shall be reconciled within 90 days after conclusion of the inventory.

Performance Measure 1.1.a: Equipment Inventory Results. Percentage of equipment accounted for, by acquisition value, in the most recent equipment property inventory conducted will be measured.

Process used to meet objective/measure: The Laboratory submitted its inventory plan for this fiscal year based on a wall-to-wall inventory, with DOE concurrence.

Findings: The inventory plan was submitted to DOE and approved on October 10, 2001. The inventory commenced shortly after that. There were 3,858 items in the equipment category with an acquisition cost of $825,993,281.64. Reconciliation was conducted during the months of July, August and September. At the close of inventory cycle the inventory team conducted searches for those items unaccounted for. In addition, a memo and computer generated custodian listing was sent to those individuals with property which was still unaccounted for. The inventory team was able to find all but 9 items with a total acquisition cost of $112,393.37. The percentage of equipment accounted for was 99.99% equating to a rating of ‘Outstanding’.

The above graph reflects inventory results for fiscal years 1999 through 2002. Fiscal Years FY00, FY01 and FY02 were wall-to-wall inventories.

Discussion: The equipment inventory results continue to show outstanding results. At the end of last year’s inventory an article was placed in the SLAC newspaper, the ‘Interaction Point’ listing all the departments that had 100% find rate. A certificate was also sent to all departments having 100% accountability. We consider the ‘Property Awareness’ campaign a big success. With the recent implementation of the “Integrated Safeguards and Security Management”, ISSM everyone has again been reminded of his/her roles and responsibilities. All departments held meetings to roll out the program, which included handouts. This past month an “All Hands” ISSM meeting has brought further attention to Property Management and Security.

Performance Criteria 1.2: Sensitive Property Inventory. The Laboratory shall conduct successful sensitive property inventories as established in its Inventory Plan. Property accountability records shall be reconciled within 90 days after conclusion of the inventory.

Performance Measure 1.2.a: Sensitive Inventory Results. Percentage of sensitive property accounted for, by acquisition value, in the most recent sensitive property inventory conducted will be measured.

Process used to meet objective/measure: The Laboratory submitted the DOE-approved inventory plan for FY 2001which reflected a wall-to-wall methodology.

Findings: The inventory plan was submitted to DOE and approved on October 10, 2001. The inventory commenced shortly after that. For FY 2002, the sensitive property inventory category consisted of a total of 3,280 property items with an acquisition cost of $6,060,661.79. The inventory began in October 2001. The reconciliation process was conducted during the months of July, August and September. At the close of the inventory cycle, the inventory team began to search for those items previously unaccounted-for. In addition a memo and computer generated custodian listing was sent to those individuals with property that were still unaccounted for. An e-mail message was sent to all computer administrators soliciting their help in locating computers. The inventory team was able to find all but 12 items. The unaccounted-for items had a total acquisition cost of $14,176.99. The percentage of sensitive accounted for is 99.77% equating to a rating of ‘Outstanding’.

The above graph reflects inventory results for fiscal years 1999 through 2002. Fiscal Years FY00, FY01and FY02 were wall-to-wall inventories.

Discussion: The sensitive inventory results have continued to improve. The same process was applied as previously discussed in the Equipment Inventory: At the end of last year’s inventory an article was placed in the SLAC newspaper, the ‘Interaction Point’ listing all the departments that had 100% find rate. A certificate was also sent to all departments having 100% accountability. We consider the ‘Property Awareness’ campaign a big success. With the recent implementation of the “Integrated Safeguards and Security Management”, ISSM everyone has been reminded of his/her roles and responsibilities. All departments held meetings to roll out the program, which included handouts. This past month an “All Hands” ISSM meeting has brought further attention to Property Management and Security.

Performance Objective/Measure 2.0: Organizational Stewardship and Individual Custodianship. SLAC will ensure that both stewardship and custodianship for personal property is maintained.

Performance Criteria 2.1: Organizational Stewardship and Individual Custodianship.

The Laboratory will ensure organizational and individual accountability (stewardship and custodianship, respectively) for property.

Performance Measure 2.1.a: Timeliness of Assignment. The accountable individual is identified for equipment and sensitive property, and the timeliness of such identification is measured.

Process used to meet objective/measure: The initial custodian assignment was reviewed for custodial assignment accuracy and timeliness. To assess sensitive and equipment assignment accuracy, a computer-generated list was run and a random sample was chosen for physical verification.

To verify sensitive property custodial assignment, the Air Force random sample program was used to select random items for verification. DOE/OAK and a SLAC representative physically verified 30 sensitive items. All the items were found with the same custodian except for one. This item had a different custodian. This was due to the fact that this brand new computer was listed with the administrator/requestor. He had just installed this computer in the new location. He had the property transfer request on his desk to do. Taking this into consideration the results of verification revealed an assignment accuracy of 100%, for a rating of ‘Outstanding’.

To verify equipment custodial assignment, the Air Force random sample program was used to select random items for verification. DOE/OAK and a SLAC representative physically verified 30 equipment items. All items were located with the same custodian. The results of verification revealed an assignment accuracy of 100% for a rating of ‘Outstanding’.

There were a total of 1275 sensitive and equipment items received this fiscal year. A total of 4 items did not get a final custodian assignment within the 60 days. The average custodial assignment was approximately 12 days. The new custodian has a 99.69% assignment within 60 days, for a rating of ‘Outstanding’.

At the beginning of every month, a list is run of all outstanding signatures. A follow up call, e-mail message or visit is made to purchase order requestor that are 30 days past due. This has assisted in getting signature forms back within the 60 days.

Performance Objective 3.0: Utilization of Property. SLAC will ensure property utilization of government property.

Performance Criteria 3.1: Vehicle Utilization Program. The Laboratory will ensure proper utilization of government motor vehicles.

Performance Measure 3.1.a: Measure vehicle utilization. Percentage of total eligible motor vehicles meeting local utilization criteria will be measured using the average utilization percentage for each class of vehicles. Reviews will be completed for each class of motor vehicles with established criteria.

Assumptions: The average utilization percentage will be calculated for each class of vehicles by dividing the overall utilization measured into the overall utilization standard. As an example, 10 vehicles with a utilization standard of 1,000 miles per year would equate to an overall utilization standard of 10,000 miles per year. If the overall utilization measures 9,500 miles, then the average utilization percentage would be 9,500/10,000 or 95%.

Performance Criteria 4.1: The Laboratory listens and responds to its internal and external customers and stakeholders in a fair and open process that encourages dialogue and participation.

Performance Measure 4.1.a: The Laboratory shall select areas in which to determine the needs of its customers relative to its property management systems and methods. Measurement of improved customer satisfaction will be from an established baseline. The Laboratory will submit its selection by December 1, 2000 and its plan of action by April 1, 2002.

Process used to meet objective/measure: The selection and a corresponding plan were submitted to DOE/OAK on October 3, 2001. This year a customer survey was used to measure customer satisfaction. Results of past customer surveys will be used as the baseline for improvements.

Findings: An email customer survey was sent to 327 employees. A total of 59 responses were received back. The survey addressed 6 areas of service. The results were tabulated and sent to Frank Topper, BSD Facilitator, to get the “mean” for each category, which is used to measure improvement. Baseline used is from the results of previous customer surveys. Note: FY2001 a survey was not done, instead process improvement areas were focused on.

This graph shows survey results from 1998. Number 18 & 19 are new to the survey this year. This will be the baseline used to measure future customer surveys regarding on-line transfers.

1	The Property Database is easy to use.
2	The Property Database data is reliable.
3	The Property Database data is accurate.
4	The Property Database meets my needs.
5	Property Passes: knowledgeable.
6	Property Passes: friendly and courteous.
7	Property Passes: meets my needs.
8	Inventory / Marking Services: knowledgeable.
9	Inventory / Marking Services: friendly & courteous
10	Inventory / Marking Services: timeliness.
11	Inventory / Marking Services: meets my needs.
12	Salvage Operations: knowledgeable.
13	Salvage Operations: friendly and courteous.
14	Salvage Operations: timeliness.
15	Salvage Operations: meets my needs.
16	Warehouse Storage: friendly and courteous.
17	Warehouse Storage: meets my needs.
18	Online Property Transfer: easy to use
19	Online Property Transfer: meets my needs.

Discussion: Many of the suggestions have been implemented. We have improved the descriptions in the property bullets in ‘BIS”. Property forms are available in PDF format. ‘BIS’ search results now have a link to the purchase order. There are more improvements in the queue. All areas have shown an increase in customer satisfaction for an overall rating of ‘Excellent’.

SLAC ensures that Property Management programs are consistent with policies and procedures approved by DOE.

Performance Criteria 5.1: Self-Assessment of Policies and Procedures. The Laboratory shall plan, conduct, document and report annually, the results of a successful property management system evaluation.

Performance Measure 5.1.a: Assessing Support Processes. The property processes shall be measured against identified system evaluation criteria established in the plan.

Basis for Rating: SLAC’s self-assessment worksheet provides the activities to be measured, point value for each activity and performance gradients.

1. Disposition of Excess Property. The Laboratory will ensure that excess property is disposed of within 180 days of being identified as excess to SLAC with 90% resolution.

Process used to meet objective/measure: All items placed in excess are checked for the disposal time it takes to go through the excess process.

Findings: There were 87 items placed in excess this fiscal year. Items that have been through the screening period have been resolved within 180 days. With resolution of 100%, the rating for this measure is ‘far exceeds expectations’. Fourteen items are still in the screening process.

2. Warehouse Storage. The Laboratory will review storage records and ensure that all property in storage is documented or is disposed if within 180 days from the time it is declared as excess with 90% resolution.

Process used to meet objective/measure: The warehouse database is reviewed monthly to check for storage that needs renewal or removal. Upon renewal the appropriate documentation is required. If the item is turned over as excess it is tracked in the disposition of excess.

Findings: Currently there are 212 warehouse storage records on file. During this fiscal year a total of 31 storage tags were closed. Fifteen storage tags were withdrawn. Only three items were placed in excess and resolved within the 180-day period. With resolution of 100%, the rating for this measure is ‘far exceeds expectations’.

3. Loans: The laboratory shall review formal loans upon expiration and renew or take action within 60 days with 90% resolution.

Findings: Formal loans are reviewed annually upon expiration. The borrower is contacted for their continuing use or arrangements are made for the item to be returned to SLAC. The appropriate renewal is kept on file. There are currently 34 loans with other DOE laboratories or institutions. Only one loan is pending. The paperwork process to transfer the item to the borrowing laboratory has begun. The rating for this measure is ‘far exceeds expectations’.

4. Offsite Use Forms: The laboratory shall review offsite use upon expiration and renew or take action within 60 days with 90% resolution.

Process used to meet objective/measure: Review Offsite Use forms every month to insure all forms are current.

Findings: The original form is kept on file by the expiration date. At the beginning of each month the user and approver is contacted for renewal or return of the property. All offsite use is current as of September. Offsite custodians whose forms expire in October are now being contacted. The rating for this measure is ‘far exceeds expectations’.

Discussion: E-mail notification is sent to both the custodian and the approver. The e-mail indicates that their form is about to expire and list the items they currently have offsite. If the items are still required for use offsite both the custodian and the approver are required to reply to the e-mail.

SLAC ensures that property is managed appropriately to balance performance and cost.

Performance Criteria 6.1: Performance/Cost Efficiency. The Laboratory shall ensure that property processes/products are provided in the most cost efficient manner while maintaining desired levels of performance.

Performance Measure 6.1.a: Measuring Cost Efficiency/Effectiveness. The Laboratory shall measure its ability to effectively balance property management costs and performance.

Process used to meet objective/measure: Several areas were looked at to measure improvement, the excess receipt and warehouse renewal process. A review of the process and amount of time taken to accomplish this task has been examined. The new procedures will be used to compare and show the reduction in man hours/time and the reduced number of steps. Calculations for cost savings are based on reduced man-hours.

Findings: A plan was submitted to DOE. How can we acknowledge the receipt of excess property? We knew that the fastest way was electronically. An e-mail form was developed and tested. This wasn’t saving time but creating more work. It was back to the drawing board. The new process that was implemented uses a feature already available in ‘BIS’. The old custodian is now notified using the on-line ‘property transfer’ form. When the form is completed a note is made that the item was received at Salvage. The entire process is easier, convenient and saves time over the manual process of writing a receipt and using interoffice mail. Retrieving the information is easy.

The second area we wanted to make improvements to was the warehouse storage renewal. With the success of the excess property receipt, could we achieve the same results with warehouse storage renewal? We tried several electronic means. First we scanned the original warehouse form but this took too much time and effort. Second, a new renewal form was developed and tested. The results were the same -- it took too much time. The third solution now involves sending an email similar to the one used to renew Offsite Use Forms. The requestor and approver are both sent an email on storage about to expire. Their response can be made via e-mail, both for renewal and justification. We are still testing this, but results so far appear to save time over a manual notification and mailing. We have also made the warehouse storage form available from ‘BIS’ in a PDF format. It can be filled out and printed for authorization signatures. The feedback we have received on the on-line form has been favorable.

Discussion: Based on the findings the process restructure has made the excess receipt much easier using electronic communication. The goal to reduce the man-hours has been met and we are still able to uphold the performance level without a reduction of service. The rating for this measure is ‘Excellent’.

SLAC ensures that there is a program for achieving and maintaining learning and growth in the property management organization.

Performance Criteria 7.1: Evaluation of Learning and Growth and Employee Alignment. The Laboratory will foster learning and growth and employee alignment in its property management organization.

Performance Measure 7.1.a: Measuring Learning and Growth and Employee Alignment. The Laboratory will have a process in place to measure learning and growth as well as to understand and address workforce expectation.

Process used to meet objective/measure: Property personnel training opportunities were identified. Classes were arranged and scheduled. Training was measured by the percentage of employees required to take training and those who completed the appropriate training.

Findings: Plan was developed and submitted to DOE. All required property staff attended the identified training. In addition, some staff members attended onsite training in forklift operation, building managers training, electrical safety for non-electrical workers, lock and tag, Intro to Hazardous Waste refresher, S&H Self Inspection, employee orientation, storm water awareness and general radiation training. Rating for this measure is ‘Outstanding’.

Continue to work on the ‘Property Awareness Campaign’ – A Property News Letter was sent out; A certificate was sent to all departments with 100% accountability; Attended a computer administrator staff meeting; Property responsibilities regarding the Purchase card was e-mailed to a cardholders by the Purchasing Department; Continued presentation at the new employee orientation; New Integrated Safeguards and Security Management program implemented at the Laboratory.

Continue to focus on, and improve ‘Customer Service’ – We have improved many of the ‘BIS’ property features. More improvements are in the programming queue.

Continue to utilize the on-line capabilities to use graphics to show items available at Salvage – We continue to post new items in the catalogue. The response has been positive.

Work towards on-line sales – This past year we were able to implement on-line Internet sales with a tremendous amount of success. We have sold 23 items this fiscal year. Our return rate has greatly improved over holding sealed bid sales. The percent of our proceeds by acquisition cost is around 16%, which can be attributed to our careful selection on posting assets for auction.

Outstanding:	98% & Up
Excellent:	95% to 97.9%
Good:	90% to 94.9%
Marginal:	85% to 89.9%
Unsatisfactory:	<85%

Index

Property Control

Departmental Overview

Organizational Mission