Procurement
Introduction/BackgroundPoint of Contact: Bob TodaroPhone No.: (650) 926-2425 Email: rocker@slac.stanford.edu Submitted by: Cognizant DOE Office: - Office of Science, Stanford Site Office Date of Last Self-Assessment: August 2005 Status Of Purchasing System: Approved Effective Date Of Approval: March 29, 2005 Thresholds For DOE Approval: Assessment Team Members: 1. General The SLAC Purchasing Department Self Assessment was conducted in accordance with the SLAC 2005 Balanced Score Card Self Assessment Plan, dated October 5, 2004. 2. Purchasing Organization SLAC Purchasing is organized as depicted in the Organization Chart (see Exhibit I). Changes that occurred within the Purchasing Department during FY05 are as follows:
3. Status of Open Items from the 2005 Self-Assessment Review (None) 4. Participation In General On November 18-20, 2004, the SLAC Purchasing Officer attended the DOE Small Business Program Manager’s Training Meeting in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this meeting was to facilitate interactions and direct discussions between the DOE Headquarter’s Small Business Office of Economic Impact and Diversity and the DOE Prime Contractor’s Small Business Managers. In addition, on May 18-20, 2005, the Deputy Purchasing Officer participated in the Annual Energy Research Laboratory Purchasing Managers Conference hosted by Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory (PPPL). The group meets bi-annually to discuss common issues and exchange information. 5. Training Training of personnel in FY05 continued to be aided by Stanford University’s educational allowance of $800 per year. This assistance helps defray the costs of training, conferences, workshops or seminars for every employee in order to further their education. The areas of training are as follows: 5.a. Buyer Training During this fiscal year two (2) on-site training classes were presented to SLAC Buyers and Contract Administrators by Federal Publications Seminars, LLC on the following topics:
The class entitled “Government Contract Audit and Resolving Audit Disputes” provided our Buyers and Contract Administrators with a practical approach to dealing with the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) and the Defense Contract Management Command (DCMC), and other audit agencies. Course instruction consisted of understanding the operating policies and procedures of DCAA and DCMC, how audits are conducted, how to effectively prepare for an audit, how to conduct oneself during the audit, how to respond to the results and overview of what auditors look for during an audit, definitions pertaining to what are allowable and unallowable costs, how to develop a working relationship with auditors, and how to resolve audit issues without litigation. The course on “Cost and Price Analysis in Government Contracts” was presented to the Buyers/Contract Administrators to increase their overall effectiveness as contract professionals. The training session provided the Buyers/Contract Administrators with effective, immediate-use information regarding contract pricing techniques. The course covered topics such as objectives and methods of government contract pricing, the foundation of price analysis, determining certified cost or pricing data requirements and the applicability of exemptions from certified costs or pricing data, selecting and applying price related factors for award, quantitative techniques for price analysis such as index numbers, cost-volume analysis and cost estimating relationships. Both of these courses provided excellent reference materials for the SLAC Buyers/Contract Administrators to use in their day-to-day activities as procurement professionals In addition to providing on-site training classes this fiscal year, in our September staff meetings, the Purchasing Officer arranged for additional training to be provided to our Buyers/Contract Administrators with training on internal issues such as Environmental, Safety & Health (ES&H) requirements pertaining to the completion of an acceptable Pre-Work Hazards Analysis Form. SLAC’s Legal Council also presented information on how to interpret the elements of an insurance certificate and what limitations of liability SLAC requires. In addition, Purchasing also brought on-site a representative from Dun & Bradstreet to educate the Buyers/Contract Administrators on how to read and analyze the various types of financial information contained in various Dun & Bradstreet reports. 5.b. Purchase Card Training In July of 2005, the Purchasing Department conducted its mandatory annual training and review of the policies and procedures for the use of SLAC’s Purchase Card to all Cardholders and Approving Officials. This year the refresher training was conducted electronically due to the limited number of purchase card transactions for a 6 month period that had occurred following the October 11, 2004 electrical safety hazard and subsequent Laboratory shutdown. There were not any new changes issued to the policy manual that needed to be introduced to Cardholders and Approving Officials. Topics addressed through the email presentation were: 1) How to document packages when receipts, etc., are incomplete; 2) Proof of delivery on will calls and pick ups; 3) Third party billing and internet auction sites; 4) Pre-approvals; 5) Cardholder and approver availability for review; 6) error reports by email; 7) Books & miscellaneous publications; and 8) Use of the Telephone Order Log. The email also addressed that suspension of an individual’s card would be the consequence for non-compliance with the policies and procedures established for the use of SLAC’s Purchase Card. Upon completion of this training, cardholders were asked to execute a disclosure form and return it to the Program Coordinator. 5.c. Ethics Training The annual Purchasing Ethics Training session was held on August 3, 2005. This was a mandatory training session for all department professionals involved in the purchasing function. In addition to reminding buyers of the various University procedures covering code of conduct, a videotape entitled “The Battle for Avery Mann” produced by the U. S. Office of Government Ethics was re-shown to the group since there were several new Buyers in the Department. For those Purchasing Personnel who could not attend the first Ethics Training class, a make-up session was conducted on August 16, 2005. A total of twenty-five (25) Buyers and Contract Administrators and other departmental staff attended the training. 5.d. Safeguards and Security Training In order to emphasize SLAC’S commitment to performing work in a safe and effective manner, all laboratory personnel, including all of the Purchasing staff, attended mandatory training sessions on Safeguards and Security on September 22, 2005. 5.e. Overall Safety Training In April of this year, SLAC’s Director, Dr. Jonathan Dorfan, conducted an All-Hands meeting that discussed the results of the Type A accident investigation, past and present situations concerning SLAC’s safety performance that occurred at SLAC on October 11, 2004 and the subsequent investigation performed by a DOE investigation panel.. In his presentation, Dr. Dorfan stressed the importance of performing work in a safe environment. In August 2005, Dr. Dorfan hosted another “All Hands” meeting as a follow up to the meeting he gave in April. In this meeting he presented data showing our TRC and DART rates and again stressed SLAC’s commitment to performing work in a safe manner. He discussed various theories and posed possible solutions to the staff on how to perform their jobs in a safe environment. In addition, the Associate Director for Business Services, Jerry Jobe, implemented quarterly meetings with his immediate reports concerning safety issues that concern his departments. These quarterly meetings are now mandatory for all BSD Managers to attend. C. BALANCED SCORECARD REVIEW AND ANALYSIS 1. Source of Data used in the Self-Assessment The principal data generation source for the Four Perspectives was from the Business Information System (BIS). System data was collected from the period October 1, 2004 through September 30, 2005. All other data was obtained through the use of checklists and questionnaires as discussed later on in this report. 2. The Four Perspectives The four perspectives discussed below were measured as part of the self-assessment process. Each measurement was rated using the Balanced Score Card Summary Sheet format. 1. CUSTOMER: This perspective captures the ability of the organization to provide quality goods and services, effective delivery, and overall customer satisfaction. 2. INTERNAL: This perspective provides data regarding the internal business results against measures that lead to financial success and satisfied customers. 3. FINANCIAL: How effectively and efficiently SLAC meets the needs of its constituencies. This perspective captures cost efficiency, delivering maximum value to the customer for each dollar spent. 4. LEARNING AND GROWTH: This perspective captures the ability of employees, information systems, and organizational alignment to manage the business and adapt to change. 1. CUSTOMER PERSPECTIVE 1.1 Transaction Customer Survey (10 Total Points Possible) SLAC obtained the measurement of this perspective from its’ internal customers (Requestors). Prior to conducting the Transaction Customer Survey, SLAC contacted other DOE laboratories such as Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, and Jefferson Laboratory to ascertain what would be the best practice for survey formatting and increasing the amount of responses received. Several suggestions and comments were obtained. Consequently, SLAC revised and streamlined the Transaction Customer Survey in an abbreviated format aligned with the format of surveys utilized by other laboratories. The Transactional Customer Satisfaction Survey was initiated via e-mail during the month of August 2005 to fifty (50) customers. Requestors were able to respond via email, which facilitated a quicker, more convenient, method of response. Out of the fifty (50) individuals selected, only thirty-two (32) individuals elected to participate which is a decrease from the thirty-seven (37) individuals who responded in FY04. Each participant was asked to respond to a series of statements (see Exhibit II) pertaining to specific purchase orders. The statements were based upon the suggested core and optional questions of the “DOE Balanced Score Card for the Business Systems Performance Measurement and Management Program” guidebook. Areas assessed were timeliness, quality, communications, schedule, overall satisfaction, and performance. The population of participants for this survey was determined by randomly selecting Requestors from the BIS data report that were associated with purchase orders that had been awarded within the past fiscal year. Measure: Transaction Customer Survey Core Elements: Timeliness - Extent of customer satisfaction with timeliness of procurement processing, planning activities, and on going communications. Quality - Extent of customer satisfaction with the quality of Procurement services. Communications - Extent to which Purchasing communicates accurate information, which impacts the work of the organization. Schedule - Extent to which Purchasing is supportive of schedule requirements. Performance - Extent to which Purchasing is committed to certain standards. Overall Satisfaction - Extent of overall customer satisfaction with Purchasing. Target: 92% customer satisfaction Results: A rating of 94% (10 points - BSC Measured Rating) was assigned based upon an analysis of the internal customer questionnaire responses. There were thirty-two (32) respondents to the survey whose satisfaction level was calculated as follows: The transactional survey included five (5) statements the customer was asked to respond to with a “yes” or “no”:
SUMMARY
Total Average of Affirmative Responses (485/5) = 97% The transactional survey included one (1) question in which the customer was asked to rate his or her overall satisfaction with each response assigned a mathematical identity as follows: 5 points – Outstanding 4 points – Highly Satisfactory 3 points – Satisfactory 2 points – Below Average 1 point – Poor The number of satisfied respondents (rating of 3 or above) were tallied and divided by the total number of respondents to arrive at the percentage gradient. (30) Number. of Satisfied Customers = (94%)Satisfaction Rating (32) Number of Customers Surveyed 1.2 BIS Operator Climate Survey (2 Total Points Possible) This measure was established to determine the level of customer satisfaction concerning the Purchasing Department’s level of service to the Operators who are responsible for on-line entry of the purchase requisition. This review is to be performed bi-annually by the completion of a satisfaction survey by the Operators. This survey as shown in Exhibit III was sent out to the sixty-one (61) Purchase Requisition Operators in June 2005. Out of the sixty-one (61) surveys sent out, only twenty-eight (28) recipients responded. This is approximately the same number who responded to the Operator Survey sent out last fiscal year to sixty-five (65) recipients and only twenty-seven (27) individuals responded. In the survey, the Operator was asked to rate their level of satisfaction, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing a response of “strongly disagree” to 5 representing a response of “strongly agree”. A simple set of questions was devised and the Operators were asked to rate their level of satisfaction on the six (6) different elements of their job identified below. An average rating of 3 or above was regarded as a satisfactory response. The survey statements are as follows:
Measure: BIS Operator Climate Survey Target: 90% Operator satisfaction (28) Number Of Satisfied Operators (100%) Satisfaction Rating (28) Number Of Operators Responded A rating of 100% (2 points – BSC Measured Rating) was assigned based upon an analysis of the Operator questionnaire responses. The average rating received by the Operators on each question are: 1. 4.3 2. 4.3 3. 4.4 4. 3.9 5. 4.4 6. 4.3 As demonstrated above, all questions identified in the survey received a rating of 3 or greater indicating satisfaction from the Operators in regards to the customer service that the Purchasing Department provides. 1.3 Purchase Cardholder Customer Survey (3 Total Points Possible) In addition to the surveys identified above, SLAC’s Purchasing Department conducted a survey this fiscal year to determine the level of customer satisfaction concerning the Purchasing Department’s level of service provided to our Purchase Card Holders. The survey is shown in Exhibit IV. The survey was sent out to a total of two hundred forty (240) Purchase Card Holders in June 2005. Out of the two hundred forty (240) surveys sent out, only eighty-five (85) recipients responded. In FY04, two hundred twenty-one (221) surveys were sent out and only eighty-three (83) recipients responded. In the survey, Purchase Card Holders were asked to rate their level of satisfaction, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 representing a response of “strongly disagree” to 5 representing a response of “strongly agree.” A set of questions was devised and the Purchase Card Holders were asked to rate their level of satisfaction on the six (6) different elements of their duties as identified below. An average rating of 3 or above was regarded as a satisfactory response. The survey statements are as follows:
Measure: Purchase Card Holder Customer Survey Target: 90% Purchase Card Holder Satisfaction (85) Number of Satisfied PCard Holders = (100%) Satisfaction Rating (85) Number of PCard Holders Surveyed Results: A rating of 100% (3 points - BSC Measured Rating) was assigned based upon an analysis of the Purchase Card Holder questionnaire responses. The average rating received by the Purchase Card Holders on each question are as follows: 1. 4.4 2. 4.6 3. 4.6 4. 4.4 5. 4.6 6. 4.6 As demonstrated above, all questions identified in the survey received a rating of 4 or greater thereby stating that the Purchase Card Holders “agree” or are satisfied that the Purchasing Department is providing good customer service in these specific areas. 2. INTERNAL BUSINESS PROCESS PERSPECTIVE This perspective assures that customer requirements and expectations are understood and that appropriate procurement processes are in place to support customer needs. The self- assessment is the principal data generation or gathering source for this perspective. The core objectives and measures listed below were used by Purchasing to monitor its business processes and for the establishment of a baseline against which future performance will be compared. 2.1 Overall Compliance Review (25 Total Points Possible) To ensure compliance with applicable laws, regulations, prime contract terms and conditions, and SLAC policies and procedures, Purchasing conducted its annual review of procurement transactions during the period of August 8, 2005 through August 12, 2005. The PeopleSoft system randomly generated 400 files to be reviewed in the self-assessment. The 400 files were selected for review for the period of September 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005. The team reviewed the following files using the Self-Assessment Checklists (See Exhibits V and VI): One Hundred (100) files from $0 -10,000; and Two Hundred (200) from $10,000 - $25,000; and One Hundred (100) files from $25,000 - $100,000. These 400 purchase orders represented $8,761,524, or 43.2% of the total value of $20,298,190 for all purchase orders awarded during this period. The calculation is as follows:
B. UNIVERSE Total Number of actions in the review sample period was 4552. Total Value of actions in the review sample period was $20,298,190. C. PERCENTAGE (sample/universe) Total Number 400/4,522 = 8.8% Total Value $8,761,524/$20,298,190 = 43.2% The following areas were designated as a focus for the FY2005 self-assessment review process: 1. Purchase Requisition processed timely. 2. Discount for Prompt Payment. 3. Pre-Work Hazard Analysis obtained. 4. Adequacy of sole source justification documentation. 5. Price Analysis adequacy. 6. Proposal accepted as proposed. 7. EEO certification properly completed. 8. Representations and Certifications properly completed. 9. Appropriate use of DOE ICPT Agreements and other BOA’s. 10. Accuracy of Conflict of Interest listing citation. 11. Correct Debarred Listing Citation. 12. Determination of financial and technical responsibility. 13. Buy American Waiver completed. 14. Non-excessive verbiage in purchase order. 15. Correct Optional Clause (s) used. 16. Overall adequacy of file documentation. Measure: % of systems in full compliance with stakeholder requirements (e.g. applicable laws, regulations, procedures, terms and conditions of contracts, ethics, etc.) based on self-assessment. Target: 90% compliance Results: Of the Purchasing System actions reviewed for compliance with applicable laws, procurement regulations, SLAC Purchasing procedures, prime contract terms and conditions, and Government/University ethical provisions, an average of 86.4% (15 points - BSC Measured Rating) were found to be compliant. Narrative The findings are as follows:
* Review Topic No. 6 is intended to indicate the percentage of orders not negotiated by the buyer (i.e., they were accepted as proposed). Of the 296 files reviewed, 3 (1%) were negotiated. This data is presented for informational purposes only. Total Average of Actions Reviewed Found Compliant (1383/16) = 86.4% Issues and Corrective Action (For those actions found to be less than 95% compliant). The self assessment for FY05 revealed that 311 of the 400 files reviewed were found to be complaint and 89 files were found to be non-compliant. This is a six (6%) increase in the number of compliant files than the files observed in FY04. Factors to consider when reviewing the results of our FY05 self-assessment review are the impact of the formulation of the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) Procurement Team. In April of 2005, it was determined that due to the magnitude of the LCLS Project the establishment of a separate Procurement Group was warranted. As a result, a new position for a Procurement Manager was advertised and an individual was hired from outside industry. Once the Procurement Manager position was filled, two (2) Buyers and one (1) Contract Administrator were transferred from the existing Purchasing Department to join the LCLS Team. This loss directly impacted the efficiency of the Purchasing Department as SLAC Buyers/Contract Administrators normally carry a very heavy workload. The loss of these individuals meant that the remaining Buyers/Contract Administrators had to absorb the workloads of these individuals who were transferred to LCLS. This transfer of a seasoned element of the work force severely impacted the efficiency of the department. We believe the above stated factors contributed to the results identified below concerning SLAC’s performance for fiscal year 2005. 1. Purchase Requisition Processed Timely Results: (78% compliant) Last fiscal year, SLAC scored 84% in this category. Some of the root causes that contributed to SLAC’s lower performance this year were attributed to SLAC Buyers/Contract Administrators continuing to maintain a heavy workload due to the continuation of the GLAST project and the loss of three (3) Buyers/Contract Administrators who were permanently assigned to the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) project. All of these individuals maintained a very heavy workload which had to be disseminated among the remaining Buyers upon their departure. Corrective Action: Purchasing Management has increased its’ attention to this measurement by monitoring all buyer progress on the placement of awards through weekly status meetings with all Buyers. Target Completion Date: Accomplished 2. Discount Taken Results: (65% compliant) Buyers failed to take advantage of the discount offered by the vendor for prompt payment in many cases. As a result, the performance on this measurement decreased by 9 percentage points when compared to the 76% accomplishment experienced last fiscal year. Corrective Action: Purchasing Management will continue to reinforce with the Buyers the need to cite a discount offered by suppliers through the creation of a new Buyer’s checklist. Target Completion Date: December 31, 2005 3. Pre-Work Hazard Analysis Obtained Results: (72% compliant) In June 2002, the requirement for the Buyers to obtain a Pre-Work Hazard Analysis for all types of work to be performed on SLAC premises was introduced. This requirement continued throughout FY05. Purchasing concluded the fiscal year at 72% which is 8 percentage points lower that the 80% compliance achievement in FY 04. Corrective Action: Purchasing Management will continue to enforce with the Buyers the need to obtain a completed PWHA form for any effort performed on-site through the creation of the new Buyer’s checklist. Target Completion Date: December 31, 2005 4. Sole Source Justification Adequate Results: (84% compliant) During the self assessment for FY05, it was discovered that sole source justifications were either missing in the file or deficient in support of a sole source procurement. In other instances, the correct web format was not used. When compared to FY04’s 90% rating, Purchasing achievement dropped by 6% for this category. Corrective Action: Purchasing Management will continue to emphasize the need for a proper formatted justification to be completed for procurements in excess of $25,000. Target Completion Date: On-going 5. Price Analysis Adequacy Results: (90% compliant) Purchasing experienced a 4 percentage point drop in this area when compared to FY04’s achievement of 94%. In FY05, Buyers were not being consistent in adequately addressing the requirement of price reasonableness by establishing comparative pricing in their memorandums to file. Also, in most sole source procurements, Buyers failed to compare pricing to other vendors selling similar items and, instead, relied solely on previous purchase orders (some of which were outdated) with the same vendor to make that comparison. Corrective Action: Purchasing Management will continue to reinforce the need for adequate price analysis. Target Completion Date: On-going 6. Proposal Accepted As Proposed Results: (100% compliant). Corrective Action: No corrective action is required 7. EEO Certification Not Properly Filled Out Results: (90% compliant) When compared to last fiscal year, the rating on this measurement for SLAC increased by 10 percentage making it 90% compliant. Buyers continued to verify that the vendor completed all sections of the EEO certification. Corrective Action: SLAC Purchasing Management will continue to instruct the Buyers to completely review the EEO Certifications received by suppliers at the time of receipt. Target Completion Date: On-going 8. Representations And Certifications Complete Results: (90% compliant) Purchasing slightly improved our performance in this area when compared to last fiscal year’s rating of 89%. Purchasing Management continued to emphasize to the Buyers the importance of assuring that representations and certifications were completed for every section of the document. Corrective Action: Purchasing Management will continue with its’ efforts of educating the Buyers on the necessity to validate vendors representations and certifications are complete in all areas. Target Completion Date: On-going 9. Use Of DOE ICPT Agreements Results: (91% compliant)A slight improvement was noted on this performance measurement for this fiscal year when compared to the 90% experienced in FY04. Corrective Action: Purchasing Management will continue to provide oversight on the use of ICPT’s and stress to the Buyers the need to cite the ICPT/BOA number in their procurements. Target Completion Date: On-going 10. Accuracy of Conflict Of Interest Citation Results: (95% compliant) SLAC’s rating remained the same as last years’ accomplishments in this category. Corrective Action: Purchasing Management will enforce with the Buyers the need to check and document the most up to date listing of the Conflict of Interest citation when constructing their procurement files. Target Completion Date: On-going 11. Debarred Listing Citation Results: (95% compliant) During FY05, SLAC slightly decreased its rating on this measurement when compared to FY 04 (98%). Corrective Action: Purchasing Management will enforce with the Buyers the need to check the most up to date listing of the Debarred List when constructing their procurement files. 12. Financial/Technical Responsibility Results: (96% compliant) During FY05, SLAC experienced a rating of 96% for this measurement. This is a 5% increase from last fiscal year. The reason for this increase was due to Purchasing Management reminding buyers to make more of a concerted effort to include the required statement in their memo to file to show the determination of financial and technical responsibility had been performed on the vendor prior to award. Corrective Action: No corrective action required. 13. Buy American Waiver Results: (64% compliant) This is a significant decrease in performance when compared to last fiscal year’s rating of 100% for this measurement. We believe this is attributed to the new Buyers added to the Department who are not thoroughly cognizant of the procedures on the Buy American Act. Corrective Action: Purchasing Management will provide oversight and guidance to all of the Buyers when procuring items/services from foreign owned companies. Target Completion Date: On-going 14. Non-Excessive Verbiage Results: (99% compliant) FY05 performance remained virtually the same as last fiscal years rating of 98% for this measurement. Corrective Action: No corrective action required. 15. Correct Optional Clauses (s) Used Results: (91% compliant) Purchasing improved slightly when compared to last fiscal year achievement of a 90% compliance rating. Corrective Action: No corrective action required. 16. Overall Adequacy Of File Documentation Results: (83% compliant) SLAC dropped from 86% (3 percentage points) in this area from last year’s review. Some possible explanations include situations where the Buyer checklist was not properly completed and documents such as the Pre-Work Hazard Analysis and Buy American Act Waivers were missing from the official file. Corrective Action: Purchasing management will reinforce the requirements to all Buyers that files must provide a complete and accurate audit trail of the purchase transaction. Target Completion Date: On-going 2.2 Measuring Effectiveness This objective measures the efficiency of the average cycle time (exclusive of Purchasing Authorization Card) acquisitions process by measuring the time between receipt of an approved purchase requisition and award of the purchase order. 2.2.a Average Cycle Time (Days) Transactions >$100,000 (15 Total Points Possible) The average cycle time will be determined by dividing the total of time between receipt of requisitions and award by the number of awards. Measurements will be calculated for all transactions. Measure: Average cycle time for all procurements (exception Purchasing Authorization Card) Average Cycle Time = (Total Time Between Receipt of Requisitions & Award) / (Total Number of Awards) Target: 27-32 days average cycle time for actions equal to or greater than $100,000 Results: 11.4 days (15 points BSC Measured Rating) 2.2.b Average Cycle Time (Days), Transactions <$100,000 (BSC Reporting Only) The average cycle time will be determined by dividing the total of time between receipt of requisitions and award by the number of awards. Measurements will be calculated for all transactions. Measure: Average cycle time for all procurements (exception Purchasing Authorization Card) Average Cycle Time = (Total Time Between Receipt of Requisitions &Award) / (Total Number of Awards) Target: 6-9 days average cycle time for actions less than $100,000 Results: 2.5 days (0 Total Points Possible) 2.2.c Average Cycle Time (Days), All Actions (BSC Reporting Only) The average cycle time will be determined by dividing the total of time between receipt of requisitions and award by the number of awards. Measurements will be calculated for all transactions. Measure: Average cycle time for all procurements (exclusive of Purchasing Authorization Card Average Cycle Time = (Total Time Between Receipt of Requisitions & Award) / (Total Number of Awards) Target: 9-12 days average cycle time overall Results: 2.6 days (0 Total Points Possible) Narrative For Fiscal Year 2005, the average cycle time for BIS procurements under $100,000 was 2.5 calendar days (5,468 transactions), for procurements equal to or over $100,000 it was 11.4 calendar days (84 transactions). For All procurements it was 2.6 calendar days (5,552 transactions). Transactions are defined as both Purchase Orders and Subcontracts. Processing time is not tracked for the remaining dollars, which are attributable to credit card purchases, blanket order releases, and modifications to existing purchase orders and subcontracts. Measured cycle time begins with the approval by Purchasing Management of the purchase requisition (subsequently assigned to the buyer) and ends with the award of the purchase order or subcontract. Important to note here is that efforts normally defined as pre-procurement planning are not represented in the information system calculations. Purchasing staff is oriented to the customer service process of initiating the request for proposal/bid package as early as possible, which often precedes receipt and approval of the purchase requisition from the requesting organization. This process is deemed to be more responsive to the customer’s needs and supportive of SLAC’s mission. A comparison of fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 data is as follows:
As can be seen in the chart above, when comparing the FY05 data with FY04, the purchase requisition processing time decreased significantly for processing purchase requisitions over $100,000. SLAC also experienced a slight improvement in processing purchase requisitions under $100,000. Both of these improvements resulted in a small reduction in SLAC’s cycle time for all actions for FY05. With the occurrence of the Type A Accident at SLAC in October of 2004, Purchasing experienced an unusual fiscal year. During the first half of FY05, purchase requisitions were not being generated with any regularity as programs were aligning themselves with changing safety requirements. The Type A Accident created mandatory stand-downs throughout the facility which affected several programs for a series of weeks and even months. As a result, there was a significant reduction in the number of purchase requisitions generated with many of the 5,552 purchase requisitions being processed during the last six months than during the first 6 months of the fiscal year. This situation lead to the creation of very heavy workloads to be maintained by our Buyers/Contract Administrators right at the end of the fiscal year instead of being able to spread the work out more evenly over the fiscal year. Even with this anomaly, the Purchasing Department was successful in maintaining low requisition cycle times for the year. In addition, new safety requirements which resulted from the Type A Accident emerged this fiscal year that changed the way we process requisitions. For example, new ES&H and Integrated Safety Management (ISM) clauses were created and added to our Terms and Conditions and will be included in our Purchasing Policies and Procedures. The required policies mandating Purchasing to obtain a completed Pre-Work Hazards Analysis Form (PWHA) and insurance certificate from a vendor prior to the commencement of on-site work continued to be an added task for Purchasing. At times, this was an obstacle to processing requisitions in a timely manner as the PWHA form needs to be submitted and reviewed by an Environment, Safety and Health (ES&H) Officer prior to award of a subcontract for construction and any work to be performed on site. Both GLAST and LCLS continued to have an affect on the number of purchase requisitions processed by Purchasing. Even though GLAST procurements were not as significant as they had been in previous years, due to the fact that the procurement phase of the project is winding down, Purchasing experienced several short periods of an influx of purchase requisitions. Even with the unanticipated major demands of GLAST experienced by the Purchasing Department this fiscal year, Purchasing was still able to exceed its’ requisition processing time for all procurements. 2.2.d. Percentage of Transactions Placed Through Alternative/Rapid Purchasing Techniques (10 Total Points Possible) This objective measures the transfer of traditional purchasing activities such as supplier selection, best value determination, and ordering and receiving from the purchasing organization directly to the user organization. The percentage of this volume is determined by the total number of transactions (Just In Time, Purchasing Authorization Card, Releases against Basic Ordering Agreements) placed directly by the user divided by the total number of actions awarded (includes Purchasing awards). The period covered is October 2004 through September 2005. Measure: Percentage of transactions placed through alternative and Rapid Purchasing Techniques (RPT) (JIT, Purchase Card, Blanket Order Releases, E-Commerce, ICPT, Oral Purchase Orders, Strategic Agreements and Supplies Programs.) The following formula shall be applied to measure the effective use of alternate procurement methods: Percentage of transactions placed by RPT = (Total number of RPT transactions placed(24,166)) / (Total Number of Transactions (29,774)) Target: 80% or greater of transactions placed through Rapid Purchasing Techniques. Results: An 81.1% measurement (10 Points - BSC Measured Rating) was obtained as follows:
2.2.e Percentage of Transactions Placed through E-Commerce(0 Total Points Possible) Measure: The percentage of transactions placed through electronic Commerce. For this measurement e-commerce is defined as all acquisitions made by the user community through the on-line ordering systems for Grainger, Dell, Corporate Express, and the on-line orders issued under the new HAAS Chemical Management contract. The following formula shall be applied to measure the effective use of e-commerce: Percentage of transactions placed by e-commerce shall equal: (Total Number of e-commerce transactions placed (6,989)) / (Total Number of Rapid Purchasing Transactions (31,452)) Target: Unsatisfactory: <40.0% - 54.9% Marginal 55.0% - 59.9% Good 60.0 % - 64.9% Excellent 65.0% - 69.9% Outstanding > 70.0% Results: Using the formula above, 22.2% measurement was obtained (0 Points - BSC Measured Rating) 2.3 Effective Supplier Management (5 Total Points Possible) This measurement will be obtained by dividing the number of line items delivered on time by the total line items due (or total like items received) for SLAC Key Suppliers. The percentage of on-time deliveries of purchased goods from SLAC’s Key Suppliers will be tracked and performance will be measured on a cumulative basis. The following formula will be used: Measure: (Number of On-Time Deliveries by Key Suppliers (2,783)) / (Total Number of Deliveries of Key Suppliers (4,111)) Key suppliers are identified as commodity vendors within the last three (3) years who have been awarded a minimum of ten (10) orders equaling or exceeding $50,000 per year. Target: Unsatisfactory: <54.0% Marginal: 54.1% - 64.0% Good: 64.1% - 74.0% Excellent: 74.1.% - 84.0% Outstanding: >84% Results: Per the Narrative below, 67.6% (3 points - BSC Measured Rating) of deliveries were on time for Key Suppliers Narrative In Fiscal Year 2004, SLAC changed this objective to measure the on-time delivery of our key suppliers only. Key Suppliers were defined as a commodity vendor that within the last three (3) years has been awarded a minimum of ten (10) orders that equal or exceed $50,000 per year. SLAC designed a PeopleSoft query to capture the performance of our key suppliers by line item. After discussions with Procurement Managers at various DOE Office of Science Laboratories, it was determined that on time delivery was calculated by others to include those items delivered up to 3 days after the Purchase Order due date so as to accommodate internal processing of the delivered items. This methodology was applied to our calculation as well. In FY04, SLAC had twenty-three (23) key suppliers that had a total of 3,716 purchase order line items. Out of these line items, 2,718 were delivered on-time resulting in a 73% rating. In FY05, SLAC added 37 vendors to its’ key supplier list which increased the overall number of key suppliers to sixty (60). For these suppliers, a total of 4,111 purchase order line items were issued throughout the year. Of this amount, 2,783 were delivered on-time resulting in a 67.6% on-time delivery score for the fiscal year. This is a 5.4% drop in performance from SLAC’s FY 04 achievement of 73% and a 16.4% difference from the 84% target for FY 2005. Corrective action for fiscal year 2006 will be to continue to designate this area as a need for special attention by the Buyers and Expeditors. Increased monitoring of a supplier’s performance in this area will be conducted. This includes managing and analyzing late deliveries to identify those key suppliers that need to improve their on-time deliveries. 2.4 Socioeconomic Subcontracting (5 Total Points Possible) This objective measures the success in achieving business practice goals. This will be measured by dividing the number of socio-economic goals achieved by the total number of goals. Objective: Socioeconomic Subcontracting Measure: % of economic and social diversity and local participation program goals achieved including: SB and SDB Goals, Regional/Local Outreach/Support Good Neighbor Program. Target: Far exceeds expectations = >106% of goals. Exceeds expectations = 101% to 105% of goals. Meets expectations = 92% to 100% of goals. Needs improvement = <92% of goals. Results: As of September 30, 2005, SLAC attained 70.57% of the goals set with the DOE. (0 Point - BSC Measured Rating) Narrative During this fiscal year, SLAC’s actual reportable dollars for socioeconomic goal performance totaled $68,641,264. This is a $18,641,264 increase from our originally projected socioeconomic base of $50,000,000. Based upon this performance total, SLAC did not meet its socioeconomic goals except for in the category of 8(a) Pilot Program. SLAC’s overall small business goal was 50% for the year. Our achievement fell short of this goal by 1.4%. If our analysis was performed on dollars alone, SLAC exceeded the projected dollar goal by $8,375,556. In addition, SLAC exceeded the projected dollars for Small Business, Small Woman-Owned, and the 8(a) Pilot Program categories. SLAC's efforts in fiscal year 2005 are summarized as follows:
SLAC purchase card program continued to have a major impact on our socioeconomic results. In FY05, our purchase card usage was $4,206,781.47 which is $1,293,218.53 less than our level of usage in FY 04 ($5.5M). Albeit the level of usage declined in FY05, the use of the purchase card continues to eliminate a large portion of the procurement dollars from the reportable base that might have been otherwise made available for award to small businesses. Another source of impact was the fact that many procurements for FY05 were awarded to large businesses for major projects such as the Gamma Large Area Space Telescope (GLAST) and the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) due to the specific nature of the effort. The DOE Headquarters Integrated Contractor Purchasing Team (ICPT) initiative also contributed to a decrease in available dollars for the socio-economic goals. Although using ICPT agreements is a cost effective mean of procuring goods and services and is an efficient way to achieve product standardization, the program has a substantial impact on the socio-economic program. For example, SLAC has historically purchased desktop and laptop computers from small disadvantaged and small woman-owned businesses. However, since FY 1998, by utilizing an ICPT BOA, SLAC has standardized on Dell computers. Outreach Efforts SLAC participated in the following outreach activities during Fiscal Year 2005: 1. The “High-Tech” 2005 Small Business Procurement Fair and Conference in Los Angeles in March 2005, was sponsored by JPL and NASA. The two-day event included 200 Prime Contractor booths and was attended by representatives of over 1000 small businesses. The conference included numerous workshops on doing business with federal agencies, prime contractors, and technology commercialization. SLAC successfully established several new SDB and woman owned sources at this conference. 2. SLAC also participated in the 6th Annual DOE Small Business Conference in Nashville, TN in June 12-15. In attendance were over 1,100 participants consisting of individuals from DOE Program Offices, other M&O Contractors, and small businesses throughout the country. 3. The Deputy Purchasing Officer gave a presentation to the 8(a) Association in August that provided attendees with an overall understanding of SLAC’s mission and a list of procurement activities projected to occur over the next three (3) fiscal years. In addition to these conferences, SLAC also engaged in the U. S. Small Business dministration’s 8(a) Showcase(s) as scheduled throughout the fiscal year in order to provide small businesses with the “maximum extent practicable” concerning procurement opportunities. “Inreach” Efforts The Purchasing Officer, in his role as Subcontracting Plan Administrator, routinely reports socio-economic program progress to the Associate Director, Business Services Division, for his information. He, in turn, disseminates such information to other members of the Directorate to keep them informed of SLAC's progress in meeting the Department of Energy's socio-economic goals. The Subcontracting Plan Administrator, in his capacity as Purchasing Officer, reviews goals, and reports progress on salient ideas and innovative methods during scheduled buyer meetings. On a monthly basis, each buyer is informed of individual accomplishments and overall cumulative progress in meeting the total goals of the Laboratory. All personnel are encouraged to develop new small, small disadvantaged, and small woman-owned sources and assist such firms in becoming viable sources of services and supplies to the Laboratory. The Deputy Purchasing Officer also gave a presentation to the Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Laboratory (SSRL) on the SLAC procurement process. The presentation provided an overview of the procurement process for actions less than $10,000, actions ranging from $10,000 to $25,000, and actions over $25,000. In addition, the following elements were discussed:
During our yearly employee performance appraisals, we stress to each Buyer the importance of soliciting small, small disadvantaged, and small woman-owned business at every opportunity. We monitor each buyer's performance and utilize the results as one of the tools in our salary setting process. Individual buyer achievements are acknowledged and discussed at buyers meetings along with progress toward meeting SLAC's goals. Additional Small Business Activities During FY2005, SLAC received correspondence from a large number of small, small disadvantaged, and small woman-owned businesses seeking inclusion on our bidder’s list. Each letter of inquiry was reviewed and personally responded to by the Purchasing Officer, giving the vendor the name and phone number of the assigned buyer. A copy of the letter and any vendor literature is forwarded to the appropriate buyer for reference and inclusion on their bidder's lists. With implementation of the Business Information System, we have also been sending questionnaires to these new vendors. Both the SLAC Buyers and requisitioners load the information provided by the vendors into our PeopleSoft vendor database so that it can be utilized on future procurements. 2.5 Effective Use of Competition (0 Total Points Possible) This measure applies to any dollars obligated during the fiscal year on a subcontract or purchase order that was awarded using effective competition and whose current dollar value exceeds $100,000. Effective competition means, given the size and complexity of the requirement, a sufficient number of potential sources are solicited with the expectation of receiving competitive proposals to support the reasonableness of price or cost. The placement of delivery orders, task orders, or releases against indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity, requirements-type or other similar contracts are considered competitive if the underlying contract was awarded using effective competition. Measure: The percentage of total dollars obligated on actions over $100,000 using effective competition (0 Total Points Possible) The following formula shall be applied to measure the effective use of competition: (Total dollars obligated on competitive procurements over $100,000 ($19,419,623)) / (Total dollars for all competitive procurements awarded in FY05 ($29,362,875)) Target: Unsatisfactory: <30.0% -34.9% Marginal 35.0% – 39.9% Good 40.0 %– 44.9% Excellent 45.0% – 49.9. % Outstanding > 50.0% Results: 66.1% of SLAC’s procurements over $100,000 were Competed (0 Points - BSC Measured Rating) 2.6 Reviews During FY2005, the following audits were conducted that included the Purchasing Department’s participation: A. Stanford University Internal Audit Review of SLAC Purchasing Controls A.1. Davis-Bacon Act Review In May of 2005, an audit was conducted by the Stanford University Internal Audit Department. The primary objective of the audit was to evaluate SLAC’s Internal Procedures on the review and approval of invoices from Subcontractor who are subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. There were two recommendations issued as a result of this audit. They are as follows: A.1.1. Recommendation The Purchasing Officer and Deputy Purchasing Officer should update Section 42-1 of the Business Services Division (BSD) Procedure Manual. Corrective Action SLAC Purchasing Management concurs with this recommendation and is in the process of updating all BSD procedure. Target Completion Date: December 2005 A.1.2 Recommendation The Purchasing Officer and Deputy Purchasing Officer should ensure that the Contract Administrators are reminded of their responsibility to adhere to the Purchasing Office’s internal procedures for the review and approval of subcontractor invoices that are subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. Corrective Action SLAC Purchasing Management concurs with this recommendation. The Deputy Purchasing Officer held a meeting on May 9, 2005 with the Construction Contract Administrators and reminded them of their responsibility to follow the Business Services Procedures concerning the review and approval of subcontractor invoices subject to the Davis-Bacon Act. In addition to the audit performed above, Purchasing was involved in responding to the following sections of the Type A Corrective Action Plan B.2. Type A Corrective Action Plan The following actions were conducted by the Purchasing Department to ensure Purchasing is in compliance with the Corrective Action Plan for the Judgments of Needs Identified in the Type A Accident Investigation Report on the October 11, 2004 Electrical Arc Injury at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center dated January 14, 2005: B.2.1. Corrective Action 7-1 Revise the pre-contract process Request for Bid (RFB), Contractor evaluation and selection and contract terms and conditions as necessary to ensure the selection of qualified contractors with an excellent safety record. The first step in ensuring that contracted work is done safely and efficiently is to select contractors who have a demonstrated record of excellent safety practices. Minimum safety related standards will be established for any contractor wishing to bid on work at SLAC. As a part of the bid package, SLAC will clearly communicate its expectations with regard to ES&H performance. The contract terms and conditions (T&C’s) will establish the appropriate training certification must be provided for contract workers and supervisors who work on energizing electrical equipment and minimum ES&H performance requirements and penalties for violations thereof: Responsible Manager: Robert Todaro Organization: Procurement Completion Date: April 29, 2005 Response Paragraph 1 of the “Instructions to Bidders Qualifications” of SLAC’s Construction Terms and Conditions has been revised by the addition of Paragraph B which requires the completion of the Safety Qualification Criteria form in order to qualify to bid the project and receive the award. It is also a requirement that this form be completed by any lower-tier subcontractors performing work at SLAC. Safety Training Requirements for Electrical Subcontractors has been added as paragraph “H” of Article 21 entitled “Safety, Environmental Protection and Health – General” of the Construction Terms and Conditions Completed: April 28, 2005 B.2.2. Corrective Action 7-2 As part of the revision of the T&C’s in construction subcontracts, a requirement that contractor crews complete a Pre-task Analysis Checklist will be established. Two levels of hazards’ analysis will be required for every construction subcontract. The pre-work hazard is currently required and is completed by the contractor before any work begins. It identifies the hazards associated with the entire project and the methods required to mitigate them. The Pre-task Analysis Checklist will be completed by the contractor crew performing a specific task and is a more detailed look at the specific work to be performed by the crew that will be performing the work. The entire crew will participate in this exercise prior to the start of work each day and whenever the tasks they are working on has changed. The Pre-Task Analysis Checklist is designed to identify hazards, work authorization required, and mitigations necessary to perform a task safely. After the list is filled out the work supervisor will have every member of the crew sign it. The work supervisor will keep the checklist with him/her during the work day available for review by any interested party. At the end of the work day, the work supervisor will complete the checklist by noting any injuries that occurred, problems that were encountered, and any things that could have been done differently to improve the work process. The completed checklist will be delivered to the project manager for review and retention in the project records. Responsible Manager: Jerry Jobe Organization: Business Services Division Completion Date: April 29, 2005 Response The Construction T&C’s , Article 10 entitles “Submittals”, paragraph H, has been revised to include the requirement of a Subcontractor to complete a Pre-task Analysis Checklist as well as any of its’ lower-tier subcontractors. Completed: April 28, 2005 B.2.3. Corrective Action 7-3 Develop a list of preferred contractors whose safety record and job performance are judged to be excellent A list of pre-qualified vendors will be established to aid in the identification and selection of preferred contractors. The list will be established based upon an evaluation of the factors identified as important in CA7-1. Requests for bid would be sent to these contractors and the award made based on cost and other factors as appropriate. These contractors would already be familiar with the safety expectations at SLAC and consequently what is expected when working on-site at SLAC. The safety performance of these contractors on jobs at SLAC will be reported to Procurement for use in pre-award evaluations for subsequent awards. Responsible Manager: Robert Todaro Organization: Procurement Completion Date: April 29, 2005 Response A list of “pre-qualified” vendors was established for the following areas of construction, General Contractors, Electrical, Mechanical, Paving, HVAC’s, and Concrete work. The Safety Qualification Criteria form was sent to these companies to gather additional safety information on the company. Purchasing is currently in the process of evaluating the responses received from these Subcontractors. It is anticipated that our list of “pre-qualified” subcontractors will expand as we further pursue the evaluation of various contractors. Purchasing will retain this information in paper form in the Construction Subcontracting Group until the ES&H Department has established a database on safety performance. Completed: April 28, 2005 B.2.4. Corrective Action 7-4 Review the OSHA citation policy on multiemployer worksites and ensure the pre-work preparation and communication between SLAC and the selected contractor is consistent, comprehensive and in accordance with that policy. In order for a contractor to understand the requirements of a job, at a minimum a written scope of work must be provided, signed off and dated by the requestor of the work and reviewed by an engineer qualified in the work area (the requestor and qualified engineer may be the same person). The Procurement kick-off meeting will include representatives from Procurement, ES&H, the assigned UTR, and a project representative. This kick off meeting will include a review of SLAC’s ES&H expectations, a review of any licenses or certifications required for the work; a review of contractually required documents; a review of orientation training required for the contractor’s employees; a review of SLAC’s oversight processes; a review of any special conditions pertaining to the work; a review of the Pre-Work Hazard Analysis (PWHA); a discussion of the OSHA multi-employer worksite regulation as it relates to SLAC’s and the contractor and contractor employees responsibilities for compliance with safety requirements contained in the contract; etc. And a reminder that the PWHA must be complete and reviewed, signed, and dated by the appropriate SLAC staff and returned to the contractor before any work can begin. Responsible Manager: Robert Todaro Organization: Procurement Completion Date: April 29, 2005 Response The kick-off meeting process has been enhanced to include the new requirements as cited above. Completed: April 28, 2005 B.2.5. Corrective Action 7-5 Review SLAC construction subcontract T&C’s to ensure that they do not contain language that encourages subcontract workers to comprise safety. The language used in the T*&C’s typically included in SLAC’s construction subcontracts will be reviewed for any language that could in any way be construed to encourage subcontract workers to compromise safety; any noted contract T&C’s will be revised as necessary Responsible Manager: Robert Todaro Organization: Procurement Completion Date: April 29, 2005 Response A revised construction Terms and Conditions format has been completed. A review was made to the best of the Purchasing Department’s ability to ascertain any safety related language that could possibly be construed as a compromise on safety. In addition, Legal Counsel has reviewed and is in agreement with the revisions made to the Terms and Conditions so that language is not retained that might construe or encourage subcontract workers to compromise safety. Completed: April 28, 2005 2.7 Internal Review Board The Internal Review Board (IRB) is comprised of the Purchasing Officer, the Deputy Purchasing Officer, and a Senior Contract Specialist/ Group Lead with SLAC Legal Counsel serving as an advisor as necessary. All procurement actions to be submitted to the DOE for approval are required to be reviewed by the Board prior to submittal. In addition, all procurement actions exceeding $100K are to be reviewed by the IRB whether or not they are to be submitted to the DOE. The review focuses on the following areas:
A total of 204 actions were reviewed by the IRB for FY 2005. The reviews disclosed weaknesses in price analysis, representations and certifications not completed properly, purchase orders lacked appropriate language/conditions, period of performance conflicting dates, specification document not clear, and inconsistency or lack of file documentation, and other minor errors and omissions. 2.8 BSD Purchasing Procedures As of this writing, SLAC’s Business Services Purchasing Procedures are currently being updated. The procedures were determined to be in need of updating to make them consistent with the new Prime Contract. The anticipated date of completion is December 31, 2005 with an implementation date of January 31, 2006.
2.8.a Terms and Conditions The following terms and conditions formats were updated consistent with the Stanford University/DOE prime contract in the last quarter of FY 2005:
All formats were submitted to the DOE SLAC Site Office in early October, 2005 for review and approval. 3 FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE This perspective measures the functional cost efficiency of the purchasing organization. This will be measured by establishing a cost to spend ratio, which will be calculated by dividing purchasing organizational costs by the business volume. Organizational costs are the total costs for acquisition, i.e., labor, direct, indirect, fringe benefits, overhead, travel, training, etc. Business volume is defined as the total of all dollars obligated. 3.1 Cost to Spend Ratio: Optimum Cost Efficiency of Purchasing Operations (10 Total Points Possible) Measure: Cost to Spend Ratio: Purchasing Operation’s Operating Costs Divided by Purchasing Obligations Target: Outstanding = <$.025 Excellent = $.025 to $.0279 Good = $.028 to $.0309 Marginal = >$.031 to $.0339 Unsatisfactory = >$.0344 Results: The Purchasing Administration cost to acquire $1 of goods and services at SLAC during Fiscal Year 2005 was $.024 (10 points - BSC Measured Rating). This is calculated as follows: Total Salaries and Fringe Benefits = $ 1,901,000 Total Procurement Dollars in FY 05 = $79,658,485 Cost to Procure $1 of Goods and Services: $1,901,000/$79,658,485 = $.024 Narrative Purchasing administration includes salaries and fringe benefits and related M&S costs for those Purchasing staff directly involved in the procurement of goods and services. 4 LEARNING AND GROWTH PERSPECTIVE The learning and growth perspective measures Purchasing’s ability and potential to develop and grow. This perspective looks to the future and sets objectives that strive for benefit at a later date. 4.1 Employee Satisfaction (5 Total Points Possible) This objective measures the level of satisfaction of the Purchasing staff in regards to their experience within the working environment. As part of this measurement, data was reviewed regarding employee turnover within the Purchasing Department. In the review Year 2005, Purchasing’s work force was reduced by the retirement of one (1) Buyer III, one (1) Buyer II, and one (1) Buyer I and by the relocation of one (1) Buyer III, one (1) Buyer II, and one (1) Senior Contract Administrator to the LCLS Program. One (1) Temporary Buyer, one (1) Buyer II, and three (3) Senior Contract Administrators were hired in FY 2005 to support new program requirements, increased workloads, and to fill the positions of the retired and relocated personnel. In the past, the department has not exhibited a high transitory workforce. However, due to retirements and the demands of upcoming projects scheduled, there have been multiple new additions to the Purchasing workforce. The primary measurement used to determine employee satisfaction was the Climate Survey Questionnaire (see Exhibit VII). The survey was distributed to nineteen (19) individuals within the Purchasing Department. A total of fourteen (14) individuals were responsive to the survey and five (5) individuals were non-responsive. The survey asked for the employee’s view of his/her working environment in the following categories:
Survey Results In regards to the Employee Satisfaction survey, an average response above the 3.00 level was considered to be a satisfied rating of the individual’s experiences with the work environment. Any average response below 3.00 was determined to be an unsatisfied rating. The results of this survey found the majority of responses, eleven (11), registered an average of 4.00 or higher, the remaining three (3) responses registered 3.00 or above. Out of the fourteen (14) individuals who responded, all fourteen (14) employees gave the Department a rating of 3.0 or greater providing satisfactory ratings for their surveys. Measure: Employee satisfaction index (includes data from employee survey, focus groups, absenteeism, and voluntary terminations) Satisfaction levels of the survey respondents were calculated as follows:
(14) No. Of Satisfied Staff = (100%) Satisfaction Rating (14) No. Of Staff Responded The percent of satisfied employees was measured by dividing the number of satisfied employees (14) by the number of employees responding to the survey (14). (14 divided by 14 = 100%) Target: 85% satisfaction Results: A 100% weighting (5 points - BSC Measured Rating) for this perspective was assigned per the above. 4.2 Employee Alignment (10 Total Points Possible) This objective measures the alignment of individual goals with the organizational goals. Goals are normally established with the employee at the time of performance evaluation. The SLAC one-year evaluation period runs April through March. A review was conducted of the 2004/2005 Purchasing Staff’s Performance Evaluations to determine if the goals established as of April 2005, are consistent with and are supportive of the organizational goals. Measure: Employee alignment was measured by dividing the number of aligned employees by the total number of employees with buying functions as shown in the formula below. (Total number of aligned employees ) / ( Total Number of employees with buying functions) Target: Unsatisfactory: <78.0% - 82.9% Marginal 83.0% – 87.9% Good 88.0 %– 92.9% Excellent 93.0% – 97.9. % Outstanding > 98.0% Results: The following organizational goals were validated against individual goals for the alignment:
(15) No. of aligned employees = (100%) Satisfaction Rating (15) No. of employees with buying functions All of the performance evaluations reviewed were found to contain the above goals and deemed to be in alignment with the SLAC organizational goals. As a result, employee alignment was obtained at a rate of 100%. (10 points - BSC Measured Rating) 3.3 Information Availability (0 Total Points Possible) This objective measures the availability to Purchasing employees of current information on strategic goals and objectives, customers, vendors, internal processes, and financial consequences of their decisions. A survey (see Exhibit VIII) was conducted in August 2005 to determine the availability of information tools considered necessary for the Buyers/Subcontract Administrators to complete their tasks effectively and efficiently. This was measured by dividing the number of information items readily available by the number of information items necessary. Target: 90% availability Survey Results: Verification was made of the following information resources available to each Buyer/Contract Administrator:
Of the ten (10) information tools considered necessary for the Buyer/Subcontract Administrator to perform his/her responsibilities more efficiently, all ten (10) were found to be readily available to each Buyer/Subcontract Administrator. This translates into a measurement of 100% (0 points – BSC Measured Rating) for this perspective. D. SUMMARY The analysis of the Four Perspectives (Customer, Internal, Financial, Learning and Growth) of the FY 2005 SLAC Balanced Score Card Review concluded that the processes and procedures of its Purchasing System are adequate and compliant with applicable laws, regulations, and prime contract terms and conditions to support the continued approval by the DOE. The Procurement Performance Assessment Model (PROAM) “Gauge Model” (Exhibit IX) summary depicts the total activity value and total activity score for each of the Four Perspectives as identified in this Balanced ScoreCard Report for FY 2005. The Total Activity Score for FY 2005 is 83, which translates into an adjective rating of “GOOD”. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
