Performance Based Management

Self-Assessment Report

October 2004

Home

Property Control

Introduction/Background

Date of last assessment: October 2003

The Property Control functional area received an overall rating of Outstanding in the FY 2002 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.

The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center is the lead Department of Energy (DOE) laboratory for electron-based high energy physics. It is dedicated to research in elementary particle physics, accelerator physics and in allied fields that can make use of its synchrotron radiation facilities—including biology, chemistry, geology, materials science and environmental engineering. Operated on behalf of the DOE by Stanford University, SLAC is a national user facility serving universities, industry and other research institutions throughout the world. Its mission can be summarized as follows:

• Perform world-class research in high energy physics, particle astrophysics and cosmology, and in the use of synchrotron radiation

• Provide accelerators, detectors, instrumentation and support for national and international research programs in elementary particle physics and allied fields that use synchrotron radiation

• Advance the art of accelerators and related devices through development of sources of high energy particles and synchrotron radiation, plus new techniques for their scientific utilization

• Advance the critical technologies necessary to maintain its leadership and excellence in particle physics, accelerator physics, particle astrophysics and cosmology, and synchrotron radiation

• Transfer practical knowledge and innovative technology to the private sector

• Contribute to the education of the next generation of scientists and engineers, and to the scientific awareness of the public

• Achieve and maintain excellence in matters of environmental concern and provide for the safety and health of its staff and the general public.

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 December 5, 2002.

Identification of Self-Assessment Report Staff

Names, titles, affiliations of participants

Leslie Normandin, Property Control Manager

Douglas P. Kreitz, Assistant Director Business Services Division

Pete Budrunas, Site Engineering & Maintenance – Transportation Group

Discussion of Individual Performance Objectives 

Performance Objective:     1.0 Personal Property Excellence

The Laboratory will maintain a personal property system that ensures Property programs incorporate best practices as applicable, promote customer service, and operate in accordance with policies and procedures approved by DOE and the requirements of the Prime Contract.                                (Total WEIGHT: 100%)

Performance Criterion:        1.1 Assessing Degree of Excellence Achieved

The Laboratory documents and reports its performance results against established sub measures contained in the Personal Property Assessment Model (PPAM).

Performance Measure:     1.1.a Measuring System and Service Levels

An overall Personal Property “Excellent” score is determined as a result of the points achieved on the PPAM.  The PPAM is the management system framework that establishes and maintains a customer focus, a continuous and breakthrough process improvement culture, and an emphasis on results.  

Gradient:

Property Performance Assessment Plan:

Based on the new performance objective listed above, SLAC will continue to address the same areas and use the same measures as in past self assessments.  These include the Inventory, Custodian Assignment, Vehicle Utilization, Customer Service, Support Process and Training.

1. Inventory Accountability of Personal Property, Equipment and Sensitive Property Inventory.

Performance Criteria 1.1a: 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: 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.

Performance Gradients:

Outstanding 99.5% & up

Excellent 99.2% to 99.4%

Good 98.7% to 99.1%

Marginal 98.0% to 98.6%

Unsatisfactory <98.0%

Findings:

The inventory plan was submitted to DOE and approved on November 3, 2003.  Due to experimental schedules, some areas could not be inventoried during the inventory phase.  The reconciliation phase started later than anticipated due to additional work load and various audits. The reconciliation and completion of the inventory happened simultaneously.  There were 4,330 items in the equipment category with an acquisition cost of $825,255,072.60. During the reconciliation the inventory team conducted searches for unaccounted items.  In addition, a memo and computer generated custodian listing was sent to those individuals with property still unaccounted for.  The inventory team was able to find all but 20 items with a total acquisition cost of $236,448.58.  The percentage of equipment accounted for was 99.97% equating to a rating of ‘Outstanding’.  

Discussion:  

The equipment inventory results continue to show outstanding results.  The inventory results will be placed in an article in the SLAC newspaper, the ‘Interaction Point’ listing all the departments that had 100% find rate. A certificate will be sent to all departments having 100% accountability.  A memo and computer generated listing will be sent to the division and departments with equipment not located during the inventory cycle. 

Performance Criteria 1.2a: 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: 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 2002 which reflected a wall-to-wall methodology.

Performance Gradients:

Outstanding 99.5% & up

Excellent 99.2% to 99.4%

Good 98.7% to 99.1%

Marginal 98.0% to 98.6%

Unsatisfactory <98.0%

Findings: 

The inventory plan was submitted to DOE and approved on November 3, 2003.  The inventory plan covered both equipment and sensitive property.  For FY 2004, the sensitive property inventory category consisted of a total of 4,037 property items with an acquisition cost of $6,866,998.92. The reconciliation process was conducted simultaneously with the completion of the inventory. The inventory team continued 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 email was sent to all computer administrators asking for their help in finding computers still pending inventory. The inventory team was able to find all but 7 items.  The unaccounted-for items had a total acquisition cost of $8,395.64.  The percentage of sensitive accounted for is 99.88% equating to a rating of ‘Outstanding’.  

Discussion: 

The sensitive inventory results continue to show a steady inventory find rate.  As stated in the equipment discussion, we will also publish the sensitive inventory results in the SLAC newspaper, the ‘Interaction Point’ listing all the departments that had 100% find rate. A certificate will also be sent to all departments having 100% accountability.  A memo and computer generated listing will be sent to the division and departments with equipment not located during the inventory cycle.  During the past year, we have continued to stress custodian awareness by meeting with the computer administrators.  Purchase card training includes a section on property responsibilities.

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.

Performance Assumptions:

% of accurate custodian assignments for sensitive property

% of accurate custodian assignments for controlled property                       

% of initial custodians assigned within 60 days

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.

Performance Gradients:

Outstanding 98.0% & up

Excellent 95.5% to 97.9%

Good 90.0% to 95.4%

Marginal 85.0% to 89.9%

Unsatisfactory <85.0%

Findings: 

• % of accurate custodian assignments for sensitive property.

To verify sensitive property custodial assignment, the random number generator available in “Excel” was used to select items for verification. Stanford Site Office and a SLAC representative physically verified 30 sensitive items. All items were located.  Two were with different custodians, giving us a sensitive accuracy rate of 93.33% for a rating of ‘Good’.

• % of accurate custodian assignments for controlled property.

To verify controlled property custodial assignment, the random number generator available in “Excel” was used to select items for verification. Stanford Site Office and a SLAC representative physically verified 30 sensitive items. All items were located with the same custodian.  The results of verification revealed an assignment accuracy of 100% for a rating of ‘Outstanding’.

• % of initial custodians assigned within 60 days. 

There were a total of 1244 sensitive and equipment items received this fiscal year. A total of 12 items did not get a final custodian assignment within the 60 days. The new custodian has a 99.04% assignment within 60 days, for a rating of ‘Outstanding’.

Discussion:

The sensitive property validation found all the items in the sample, except two were with different custodians located in the same department.  An email was sent to all parties stressing the need to contact the Property Office when property is transferred or moved to a new location.  We will continue our laboratory-wide effort on custodian awareness.   

Performance Objective 3.0:  Utilization of Property.  SLAC will ensure proper 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 Gradient:

The average utilization percentage for motor vehicles will be measured:

Outstanding:   98.0% & Up

Excellent:        95.5% to 97.9%

Good:              90.0% to 95.4%

Marginal:         85.0% to 89.9%

Unsatisfactory:            <85.0%

Findings: 

Vehicle mileage performance by category is as follows: 

Category                                       Fiscal Year 2004

    1                                                                  122%

    2                                                                  210%

    4                                                                  91%

    5                                                                  177% 

Average of all together is 150% for an ‘Outstanding’ rating.            

Performance Objective/Measure 4.0:   Customer Satisfaction

SLAC will strive to improve customer satisfaction

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. 

Process used to meet objective/measure: The selection and a corresponding plan were submitted to SLAC management on December 1, 2003.  This year a customer survey was used to measure customer satisfaction. Results of past customer surveys will be used as the baseline for improvements.  

Performance Gradients:

Outstanding >95% satisfied

Excellent 90% to 94.9%

Good 80% to 98.9%

Marginal 70% to 79.9%

Unsatisfactory <69.9%

Findings: 

An email customer survey was sent to 300 employees.  A total of 47 or 15.67% responded.  The survey addressed 6 areas of service.  The results were tabulated and sent to Business Services Division 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: In FY2001, a survey was not done; instead the focus was on process improvements.

This graph shows survey results from 1998.  Number 18 & 19 were new to the survey in FY02.

Key to Criteria/Measure

Overall Service   

Discussion: 

The survey shows overall service continues to be far above average. This area has an overall rating of ‘Excellent’.

Performance Objective/Measure 5.0: Information to Improve/Maintain Process

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.

Performance Gradients:      

Far Exceeds 95% - 100%

Exceeds 90% - 94.9%

Meets 80% - 89.9%

Needs Improve < 80%

Processes: 

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 138 items placed in excess this fiscal year.  This represents an increase of 14.49% from fiscal year 2003. During this fiscal year, 4 items went beyond the 180 day disposal time.  Currently, there are 34 items pending disposal, all within the 180 days. With resolution of 97.10% the rating for this measure is ‘Far Exceeds Expectations’.

Discussion: 

On average, excess items are resolved within 94 days.

2. Warehouse Storage.  The Laboratory will review storage records and ensure that all property in storage is documented or is disposed of 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 184 warehouse storage records on file.  During this fiscal year, a total of 34 storage tags were closed.  22 storage tags were withdrawn by the requestors.   12 were released to Salvage; of those only 1 was placed in excess. 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.

Process used to meet objective/measure: Loans are reviewed monthly. 

Findings:

Formal loans are reviewed upon expiration. The borrower is contacted to determine if they still need to borrow the item and the SLAC custodian is contacted to ensure the item is not needed back on site.  When the responses are received, the loan will either be renewed or returned to SLAC.  If the loan is extended, the renewal letter is kept on file.  Loans that are closed out are physically verified when they are returned.  SLAC currently has 37 loans to others. All loans are current.  Only one loan, still within the 60 day resolution is pending return. 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 ensure 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 are contacted for renewal or return of the property.  All offsite users and approvers have been contacted.  All offsite use is up to date for FY04.  The rating for this measure is ‘Far Exceeds Expectations’.

Discussion: 

E-mail notification is still being used to renew offsite use.  In addition phone calls are made to the custodians who have not replied to the email.   

Performance Objective/Measure 6.0:  Learning and Growth

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

Performance Criteria 6.1: 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 6.1.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. 

Performance Gradients:

Far Exceeds 97% & up plan milestones met

Exceeds 95% to 96%

Meets 80% to 94%

Needs Improve 79% & below 

Findings:

All required property staff attended the identified training.  Some staff members attended onsite training in Intro to Hazardous Waste, forklift operation, electrical safety, employee orientation, general employee radiological training, stairways & ladder training.  The National Property Managers Association (NPMA)/Stanford University Asset Management Conference was not held this past fiscal year.  Rating for this measure is ‘Outstanding’.

Objectives/Goals for FY 2005 

• Continue to Use On-line Sales

We have been successful in our internet sales.  This past fiscal year, we listed 44 items for sale with Bid4Assets.  Of those items listed we sold 31 on the internet. Our success with the internet sale can be attributed once again to the sale of old DOE vehicles. We research sale items before listing to help ensure a successful sale. We will strive to meet or exceed sales in the next fiscal year.

• Continue to Conduct Successful Inventories

The inventory results continue at an outstanding rating.  We are still working to continually increase custodian awareness and responsibilities.  The Director’s “All Hands” memo is being reviewed.  It is going to be reformatted in the form of a booklet.  Due to the Director’s schedule the booklet has not yet been approved.  As soon as approval is received the booklet will be printed and sent out site-wide.

• Continue to Improve on Customer Service

Our customer service also continues to hold steady.  We will continue to focus on providing quality service.  Some of the items in the programming request queue will be worked on to make the system more reliable and easier to use. 

Back to Index Page