Introduction/Background
|
Contractor |
DOE Office |
|
|
Date of last assessment: October 2000
Formulation
and revision of SLAC budgets
Establish and maintain budget controls and provide guidance on budgetary problems to all SLAC organizations
Petty Cash Function
Review of all employment requisitions to determine that proposed positions are within the approved budget plan
Financial
and special analyses upon request
Status of System
The Budget Office is part of the Business Services
Division’s Finance Office. The
major responsibilities of the Budget Office include:
Formulation and revision of SLAC budgets
Establish and maintain budget controls and provide guidance on budgetary problems to all SLAC organizations
Petty Cash Function
Preparation and/or review of authorization requests for capital and plant.
Control of commitments for capital equipment, construction activities, and advanced funded work.
Assistance to DOE with respect to supplemental budget inquiries and information
Financial and special analyses upon request
Identification of Self-Assessment Report Staff
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 FY2003 Budget Request was
submitted on time, and 20% of the budget submission was validated; consequently
is rated as “Exceeds Expectations.”
In early February the Budget
Office issued a call to the Directorate for the Field Task Proposal Agreement (FTPA)
written materials, and also included was the FY2003 Budget Request Preparation
Schedule. The laboratory director
had a “kickoff” budget meeting on February 27 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).
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 the issuance of
the President’s budget had been delayed due to the delayed transition of the
new administration. The issues
involving the formulation of the FY2002 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 DOE/Oak Budget
Liaison for SLAC 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 Technical 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 Technical division starts with the ongoing (previous year) 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 Technical Division Associate Director and the
Lab Directorate. 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
Performance
Gradient:
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 443,692K 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
previous years. Now 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, the $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.
Performance
Gradient:
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.
And 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.
Problem Analysis
Improvement Action
Plan/Goals
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 FY01Again
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.
The Office will be to provide guidance to ensure the new Commitment
System is completed. Finally, tools to improve reporting and retrieving of
data will continue to be enhanced.
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.For Questions or comments, Please contact Ziba Mahdavi, Last Updated 10/24/00