Index

Financial Management

Budget

Introduction/Background

Date of last assessment:  October 1999  

Departmental Overview

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.  The Center is operated as a national user facility for the Department of Energy by Stanford University.

Organizational Mission

The Budget Office is part of the Business Services Division’s Finance Office.  The major responsibilities of the Budget Office include:

1. Formulation and revision of SLAC budgets

2. Establish and maintain budget controls and provide guidance on budgetary problems to all SLAC organizations

3. Petty Cash Function

4. Review of all employment requisitions to determine that proposed positions are within the approved budget plan

5. Preparation and/or review of authorization requests for capital and plant.
6. Control of commitments for capital equipment, construction activities, and advanced funded work.
7. Assistance to DOE with respect to supplemental budget inquiries and information

8. Financial and special analyses upon request

Identification of Self-Assessment Report Staff  

Names, titles, affiliations of participants

Robert Strohecker, Budget Officer; Evan Economos, Teri Peterson, and Ron Kirkland, Financial Analysts.

Discussion of Individual Performance Objectives

Performance Objective #2: Quality Budget Formulation & Effective Budget Execution

Performance Criterion:  2.1: Budgets are submitted timely.

Findings:

The FY2002 Budget Request was submitted on time, and 20% of the budget submission was validated; consequently is rated as “Exceeds Expectations.”

In late January, the Budget Office issued a call to the Directorate for the Field Task Proposal Agreement (FTPA) written materials, and also included was the FY 2002 Budget Request Preparation Schedule.  The Laboratory Director had a “kickoff” budget meeting 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, and Common Site Support (CSS).  The Budget Office worked closely with each of the division planners as they developed their respective budget details.  This year was a little different than last year because all the division planners were in place to repeat the process based on the previous year’s experience.  The issues involving the formulation of the FY 2002 budget involved coordination with the division planners to insure the Lab Director’s guidance was formulated as expected, and to make sure any bottlenecks were cleared.

It was 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.

The validation of the budget submittal has risen in importance from previous years, and the Budget Liaison and program analyst visited 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 SSRL division 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 guide 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.  The SSRL division starts with the ongoing core business and uses the Budget Office provided escalation rates to develop the budget year base.  Then additional tasks are included on an incremental basis based on conversations with the Headquarters program offices.  The sum of the base plus incremental represents the division’s submittal for inclusion in the laboratory’s lab-wide totals.

Performance Criterion 2.2: Manage Uncosted Balances

Performance Measure Result 2.2a: Reduce or maintain uncosted balances within the criteria established by the DOE

Findings:

In a more global view of the management of costs and commitments, the trend of uncosted balances, which are a high priority of the DOE, has trended down dramatically from FY95 through FY98.  FY95 ended with uncosted balances of $52,092K versus Obligations for the year of $176,636K, or a ratio of 29.5%.  The FY96 figures were uncosted balances of $43,692K and Obligations of $186,991K, or a ratio of 23.4%.  For FY97 uncosted balances were $26,328K versus Obligations of $181,537, for a ratio of only 14.5%.  For FY98, uncosted balances were $23,328K versus Obligations of $182,513K, for a ratio of only 12.8%.  This trend in uncosted balances is tremendous by anyone’s standard.  Then for FY99 uncosted balances came in at $45,898K versus Obligations of $199,109K for a ratio of 23.1%.  Adjusted for the late receipt of significant dollars from NIH for the SPEAR 3 Upgrade project and the support of beam line operations along with LCLS R&D funds coming from BES, the adjusted uncosted balance is $28,178K on a base of $179,578K for a percentage of 15.7%, which is just somewhat higher than last year.  For FY2000 uncosted balances came in at $63,539K versus Obligations of $200,768K for a ratio of 31.6%.  When these results are adjusted for the late (July) receipt of $14M from NIH for SPEAR 3 Upgrade, the ratio drops to 26.5%

For the performance measure, $17,029K, or 42.8%, of the applicable uncosted balances of $39,706K for operating and plant excluding line item construction, costs of work for others, and reimbursables exceeds the DOE established dollar thresholds.  It should be noted, however, that included in the $17,029K of balances exceeding the threshold are $5,456K of commitments.  There is $12,052K of commitments within the base total of $39,706K of uncosted balances.

Consequently, the performance gradient is “unsatisfactory”.  Detail justifications will be provided with the annual Uncosted Balance Report due in November.  

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.

Findings:

The performance against this measure showed no violations in any major area.

During this past year, working with the still “new “ 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 a report containing all “limited funded” activities, as defined by the Laboratory was put in place.  These two reports go a long way to ensuring that costs and commitments are properly reported.

This measure is rated  “excellent” given the clean record of the past year and the completion of two reports needed to track “limited funded” activities.

Objective/Goals for FY 2001  

Improvement Action Plan

A significant effort will be expended to put in place the capability necessary to monitor “limited” funded activities to ensure that control levels are not violated.  Pending completion of a production report, displaying the necessary information consisting of available funding compared to costs, a manual effort is being mounted to provide this necessary information.

Goals for FY01

Again this year the Office will continue to be more open in providing important information to the laboratory.  The Office’s primary goal will be a set of  “attributes” which will aid in producing more & more useful reports for the laboratory.   Secondly, Office will  provide the necessary guidance, and testing to support the completion of the new Commitment System.   Finally, tools to improve reporting and retrieving of data will continue to be improved.

Summary Conclusions

The Budget Office staff’s current level has proven to be a wise allocation of resources, which resulted in the cleanup and deobligation of the vast majority of old, uncosted balances.  The Office has regained appropriate tracking and visibility of all plant and equipment projects, and a single report now tracks “limited funded” activities.   In addition, more detailed cost information and information of FTEs is now available on a monthly basis.  The Office has been able to support the division planning staffs in meeting their needs and goals.