Budget

Introduction/Background

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:  2.1.a

Supportable budgets submissions meet due dates, follow form, include all requested items and incorporate budget validation.

Performance Gradient

The FY2007 Budget Request was submitted on April 29 given the requested one week extension beyond the official due date of April 22.  Again, this year’s submittal required the submittal of secondary materials simultaneous with the primary materials.  All direction and guidance were followed appropriately, and uncosted balances were considered in requesting new budget authority.  Validation of this budget submittal was completed as requested and the lab’s budget formulation process was judged to meet the criteria of proper budget preparation. 

The Laboratory Director had a “kickoff” budget meeting on March 7 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 March 7, the Budget Office issued a call to the Directorate for the Field Task Proposal Agreement (FTPA) written materials and also included was the FY2007 Budget Request Preparation Schedule.  The Budget Office worked closely with each of the division planners as they developed their respective budget details.   .  The guidance was issued on March 18 with a five week due date of April 22.  The laboratory requested a one week extension from the DOE Site Office.   The Lab’s budget submission met the extended date of April 29. 

Once available, it was helpful for the Chicago Budget Division director to send out the “current” version of the Budget Handbook which at the time was  no longer accessible to people outside the DOE’s internal firewall.    

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 needs of the Laboratory in the FY2007, given the President’s budget for FY2006.

While the request for supplementary materials for Exhibit 53, the IT crosscut and the Integrated Facility and Infrastructure crosscut were the same as last year, the details to be included were significantly different.  Given the change in detail requirements combined with staff shortages, a two week extension for Exh. 53 was requested along with a one week extension for the Infrastructure crosscut.  Those revised dates were met.

In support of the DOE initiative, although not required, a few of the lab’s FWPs were submitted through the new ePME system.

This measure is rated as “Outstanding” as all deadlines were met, 20% of the budget submission was validated, and the time to prepare and to submit the budget was about the same as the previous year.

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:

For FY2005, total uncosted balances came in at $80,140KK vs. Obligations of $303,981K for a ratio of 26.4%.  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 $45,922KK and obligations of $227,692K for a ratio of 20.2%%. These uncosted balances have increased by $10,370KK from last year’s level and the percentage requiring justification rose to 62%.  Shortly after the beginning of FY05, a serious accident caused operations across the site to be suspendedfor many months in some areas.    In the Spring of 2005, an outage occurred because of a downed power line.  These two events impacted the operations of the lab. To resume operations, the Laboratory’s first priority was to review and address safety processes which resulted in the deferment of a variety of other program activities.

The FY2004 uncosted balance report was submitted and required no subsequent adjustments.  All division financial planners have access to the SLAC cost system for checking the status of costs for all their activities and have created reports for their division managers.  In addition, the Budget Office produces a monthly report tracking all costs against funding and budgets,  funding received and expected, and  FTEs.  The Budget Office works closely with Cost Accounting to ensure limited funded orders, inventory balances, and WIP are properly monitored.  In addition, regular meetings take place to review the status of AIP and Infrastructure projects.

This performance warrants a rating of “Outstanding” given the unique events at the laboratory and the laboratory’s subsequent response.

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:

Costs and commitments of all programs were within the DOE authorized funding levels. 

Although efforts to achieve this performance goal appear routine, the Budget Office and Cost Accounting have honed their processes even more this past year to ensure there is no reporting of costs above authorized levels. The Budget Office has a process to input the executed contract modification for incremental funding, to approve the establishment of new B&R codes, and to approve new charge numbers before their input into the SLAC PeopleSoft system.  As stated above, the monthly report is the document used to track costs against control levels.  In addition, each project is tracked against its budget level monthly to ensure project control level is not exceeded.

This measure is rated “Outstanding” given the clean record of the past year.

Other Budget Office Activities

Process Improvement

A significant effort continued to be 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.  In addition, significant time has been allocated to the reconciliation of Laboratory’s information reported in MARS and FIMS, the DOE’s major facilities database.

Also completed, was a more complete process for the modification of input forms required by the Budget Office to initiate projects. All the stakeholders in the project initiation process are consulted before a change is finalized.

Goals for FY06

The Office plans to develop a financial calendar of important cut-off dates and expected contract mod dates to aid the division financial planners in their goal to minimize the impact of the completion of work at the lab due to financial constraints.  Also planned, is a major revision to the Budget Office web page to make it a more useful resource for the users.

Summary Conclusions

FY 2005 has been a positive year for the Budget Office. , The Office has supported the efforts of all laboratory personnel required to track the financial impact of the newly implemented safety measures, corrections and repairs as the laboratory was rebounding from the impact of a major accident.  To ensure an orderly and timely close each month, the Budget Office has been working closely with Cost Accounting.  Finally, we have been working well with the Stanford Site Office and Chicago to meet the requirements and needs timely and completely.