Introduction/Background
|
Contractor |
DOE Office |
|
|
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 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 issues to all SLAC organizations.
Assistance in preparation of materials required for Line Item Construction projects, capital equipment projects and plant projects.
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.
Robert Strohecker, Budget Officer; Evan Economos, Laurie Escudero, and Ron Kirkland, Financial Analysts
Performance Objective #2 Financial Stewardship
Quality Budget Formulation & Effective Budget Execution
Performance Criterion: 2.1
Budgets are submitted timely.
The FY2005 Budget Request was submitted on April 30 and the deadline for submittal was April 25. While the primary materials deadline was missed, and the DOE deferred the validation of 20% of the budget submission, the supplementary materials were submitted on time, all direction and guidance were followed appropriately, and uncosted balances were considered in requesting new budget authority. Given the above factors this measure is rated "Good" even though the submittal of the primary materials was late.
The laboratory director had a "kickoff" budget meeting on February 26 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). On February 27th, the Budget Office issued a call to the Directorate for the Field Task Proposal Agreement (FTPA) written materials. Also included was the FY2005 Budget Request Preparation Schedule. The Budget Office worked closely with each of the division planners as they developed their respective budget details. This year was again a little different than last year because the initial budget meeting was delayed a month until February. Given the President’s budget, again this year, the laboratory needed more time than usual to decide what to request for FY2004 before the FY2005 request year could be finalized.
Once available, it was helpful to be able to obtain the DOE Budget Guidance off the WEB. The Office kept the Oakland Budget Office appraised as to the progress in completing the request.
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 guided the inputs; consequently if the division submittals were close to the expected targets, the Budget Office’s responsibility to assure reasonableness was 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. For this year’s request, the challenge for the Office was to properly reflect the assumptions of the need of the Laboratory in the FY2004 and FY2005 budget years.
Performance Criterion: 2.2
Manage Uncosted Balances
Performance Measure Result 2.2a
Reduce or maintain uncosted balances within the criteria established by the DOE
For FY2003, total uncosted balances came in at $47,542K versus Obligations of $230,611K for a ratio of 20.6%. When these results are adjusted to exclude line item construction, work for others, and reimbursables to meet the performance measure definition, the corresponding numbers are uncosted balances of $40,243K and obligations of $218,747K for a ratio of 18.4%. These uncosted balances have increased by over $7M from last year’s level, but the percentage requiring justification dropped to 7%. As a final note the awareness of "uncosted balances" has permeated the Laboratory to a large degree, and given this year’s especially tight budget, the laboratory still managed to underrun.
The FY2002 uncosted balance report was submitted on time but required a minor revision to eliminate a double counting in the spreadsheet. The correction was made the same day that it was called to our attention. All division financial planners have access to the SLAC cost system for checking the status of costs for all their activities and creating reports for their division managers. In addition, the Budget Office produces a monthly report tracking costs against funding and budgets, tracking funding received and expected, tracking FTEs, and tracking limited funded accounts. Regular meetings have also been scheduled to review the status of AIP and Infrastructure projects.
This performance warrants a rating of "Outstanding", especially since no justifications will be required.
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.
Costs and commitments of all programs were within the DOE authorized funding levels.
Use of 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. This year, the same as last year, the number of "limited funded" activities has continued to grow. The Office has been working more closely with Cost Accounting to ensure that funding levels were never violated. The contract modification information was formally added to the Laboratory financial system, which made it significantly easier for cost accounting to spot anomalies and bring them to the attention of the Budget Office. The Budget Office continued to provide training for the internal laboratory customers on the financial system, budget requirements, and proposal requirements. As stated above, the monthly report is the document used to track costs against control levels. At SLAC, there are between 30 and 40 major OCL levels and two to three times that many levels in the reimbursable and "special funding" categories. In addition, projects are tracked monthly, by project, against their budget level to ensure project control levels are not exceeded.
This measure is rated "Outstanding" given the clean record of the past year.
Problem Analysis
Improvement Action Plan/Goals
A significant effort was expended to improve information on Buildings and other structures to allow the Laboratory to work towards its target for maintenance on non-programmatic buildings. Much work was done to develop consistent definitions and calculations of replacement values.
The Office will continue to be more supportive in providing important information to the laboratory and work to provide more useful financial status on a monthly basis. The Office will participate in a couple of process improvement initiatives: a) the processing of charge numbers through the PeopleSoft system and b) the development of more complete summary reports of costs vs. budget vs. funding. Finally, tools to improve reporting and retrieving of data will continue to be improved.
Summary Conclusions
In the past year the Office has been able to respond to the start of Linear Coherent Light Source PED portion of the project, continued iterations of the detail content of the forthcoming SLI construction project, and follow-up analyses based on the infrastructure crosscut submittal. The Office has been able to support the division planning staffs in meeting their needs and goals.