Appendix F
OBJECTIVE STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE

SECTION B
EVALUATION OF THE LABORATORIES

Part I -- UC EVALUATION PROCESS

UC Management Team		President's Council on National Laboratories
Evaluation of Administrative Systems (Management of Performance Standards)		Evaluation of Science and Technology
Laboratory Management	30 pts	Y pts
Environment, Safety and Health	110 pts
Facilities Management (Special)	66 pts
Financial Management	66 pts
Human Resources	66 pts
Information Management	30 pts
Procurement	66 pts
Property Management	66 pts
Evaluation of Administrative Systems Total 500 Points	+	Evaluation of Science & Technology Total Y Points

UC Presentation to DOE on Executive SIA Multiplier

Part II -- OE EVALUATION OF THE LABORATORIES

DOE Validation and Oversight Process

DOE Review Process

Science Review by DOE

Evaluation of Administrative Systems (Management of Performance Standards)		Evaluation of Science and Technology
Laboratory Management	30 pts	Y pts
Environment, Safety and Health	110 pts
Facilities Management (Special)	66 pts
Financial Management	66 pts
Human Resources	66 pts
Information Management	30 pts
Procurement	66 pts
Property Management	66 pts
Evaluation of Administrative Systems	+	Evaluation of Science & Technology
Total 500 Points		Total Y Points

C.O.'s Evaluation of University Performance Assessment

DOE Determination on Executive SIA Multiplier

DOE/UC Consultation
Issue Resolution Process

Part III -- COMPONENTS OF PERFORMANCE EVALUATION PROCESS

• Annually on a date established by UC, each Laboratory presents results of self-assessment to UC and proposes corrective action plans.

• President's Council on the National Laboratories evaluates quality of science and technology at each Laboratory. The council uses input from peer review committees which base their evaluations on the following four criteria:

  Quality of Science-- Review committees will consider recognized indicators of excellence, including impact of scientific contributions, leadership in the scientific community, innovativeness, and sustained achievement. As appropriate, they may also evaluate other performance measures such as publications, citations, and awards.

  Relevance to National Needs and Agency Missions--Committees will consider the impact of Laboratory research and development on the mission needs of the Department of Energy and other agencies funding the programs. Such considerations include national security, energy policy, economic competitiveness, and national environmental goals, as well as the goals of DOE and other Laboratory funding agencies in advancing fundamental science and strengthening science education. Committees will assess the impact of Laboratory programs on industrial competitiveness and national technology needs. In this assessment, committees will assess characteristics that are not easily measured, including relevance of research programs to national technology needs and effectiveness of outreach efforts to industry. As appropriate, they may also consider such performance measures as licenses and patents, collaborative agreements with industry, and the value of commercial spin-offs.

  Performance in the Construction and Operation of Major Research Facilities--Quantifiable performance measures include success in meeting construction schedules and cost objectives, facility performance specifications, and user availability goals. Other considerations may include the quality of the science performed, extent of user participation and user satisfaction, operational reliability and efficiency, and effectiveness of planning for future improvements.

  Programmatic Performance and Planning--The review should focus on the achievement of broad programmatic goals, including meeting established technical mile-stones, carrying out work within budget and on schedule, satisfying the sponsors, providing cost-effective performance, and planning for the orderly completion or continuation of the programs. In assessing the effectiveness of programmatic and strategic planning, the reviewers may consider the ability to execute projects in concert with overall mission objectives, programmatic responsiveness to changes in scope or technical perspective, and strategic responsiveness to new research missions and emerging national needs. In the evaluation of the effectiveness of programmatic management, considerations may include morale, quality of leadership, effectiveness in managing scientific resources (including effectiveness in mobilizing interdisciplinary teams), effectiveness of organization, and efficiency of facility operations.

• Management team (UC) evaluates administrative systems for each Laboratory in each functional area (Laboratory Management, Environment, Safety & Health, Facilities Management, Financial Management, Human Resources, Information Management, Procurement, Property Management, and Safeguards and Security) on the basis of established performance measures. Weighting of points for each area is established at the beginning of each annual evaluation cycle. Numerical scores expressed as percentages are assigned to each functional area based upon the performance assessment ratings listed below. These percentages multiplied by the maximum points allocated for each functional area result in the total points for that area.

• UC establishes a aggregate "rating" for each Laboratory based on evaluation of each functional area - ratings for Science and Technology and Administrative Systems are averaged together.

• Overall rating is translated into proposed multiplier (.75 - 1.50) for presentation to DOE on Executive merit pool percentage.

• DOE establishes overall Executive merit pool percentage for each Laboratory.

• Disputes are referred to the Issue Resolution Group.

Example
University performance assessments in consultation with DOE:
Science & Technology	Exceeds Expectations	435 pts
Administrative Systems	Rating	% X Max pts = Pt Score
Laboratory Management	Meets Expectations	75% x 30 =23 pts
Environment, Safety & Health	Meets Expectations	75% x 110 =83 pts
Facilities Management (Special)	Meets Expectations	75% x 66 =50 pts
Financial Management	Meets Expectations	75% x 66 =50 pts
Human Resources	Exceeds Expectations	88% x 66 =58 pts
Information Management	Meets Expectations	75% x 30 =23 pts
Procurement	Far Exceeds Expectations	98% x 66 =65 pts
Property Management	Meets Expectations	75% x 66 = 50 pts
Total of Administrative Systems		402 pts
Total of Science & Technology and Administrative Systems		837 pts

Appendix F Table of Contents
Appendixes Table of Contents
Contract 98 Table of Contents