fiscal year 1998 battelle performance evaluation agreement/67531/metadc... · 5.3 obiective...

. .

●

Fiscal Year 1998Battelle PerformanceEvaluation Agreement

Date Published

September 1998

@

United States1;? Department of Energy

P.O. Box 550Richland,Washington 99352

DoE/RL-97-74Revision 1

UC-900

Approved for Public Release

,..

RELEASE AUTHORIZATION

Document Number: DOE/RL-97-74, Revision 1

Fi seal Year 1998 Battel 1e PerformanceDocument Title: Eval uat ion Agreement

This document, reviewed in accordance with DOE Order1430.1 D, “Scientific and Technical Information Management,”

and DOE G 1430.1 D-1, “Guide to the Management of Scientificand Technical Information,” does not contain classified or

sensitive unclassified information and is:

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

fl ~: LfLLLdV, L. Birkl and -

Lockheed Martin Services, Inc.Document Control /Information Clearance

vw+md w Applmd Technology, Bu.me.e Senstwe, 0 ass,f,.d, Cwfnohted, FxBotl Cmlrcdled, Patent, l%r.onal)% “ate, F’mpnetaty,Mected CRADA, Trademark, (Awls.sified controlled Nuclear I.formation.

Trademark Cdsolainwr. Reference herein t. any specific commercial product. pmc.ss. or service by trade name, tcademarkrnanuiacwer, w oth.nviw, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, ,eoomnm.dation. or favoring by the United States130vemnmnt or any aaen.y thereof or k. contractors or subcontractors. lh. views .“d opinions of authore expressed herein do n-atne.e.sarily state w reflect those cd the Unit.d States Government or any agency thereof, This r.pcm has be.. repcc.ducedfrom the bestavailable copy,

!limed in the Unk.d State. of America.

Available t. the U.S. Depmtmem of Erww and k. oomractom from the US. CWmtnwnt of Emmy Offiie of Scientific and TechnicalInf.rnmtrnn, P.O. Sax 62, Oak Ridoe, TN 37831: Telephone 423/5763401.

Avdlabla t. the public from the U.S. Dewrroent of C+mmeroe National Technical Information Sewice, 52S5 Port Royal Rod,

SPriWfidd, VA 221 6%; TeWmnm 703/487.4660.

●

✠

A-6001 -400.2 (09/94)

LXXJRL.97.14Rwisim 1.616198

INTRODUCTION 1

1. DETERMINING THE CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE RATING 2

Il. CRITICAL OUTCOMES, Objectives &PERFORMANCE lNDlCATORS 3Background 3Performance Expectations 4Change Control 4Responsibility Matrix 4

1.0 ENVIRONMENTALTECHNOLOGY(20%) 51.1 OMective -Develop innovative technologies andapproaches -(4O%) 5

1.1.1 Number ofinnovative technologies andapproaches successfully demonstrated 51,1.2 Provide significant solutions to Hanford problems/needs 61.1.3 Number of new environmental technology concepts identified or disclosed 8

l.20Mective -Ensure deployment ofinnovative technologies andapproaches -(45%) 81.2.1 Number of formal expressions ofinterest entered into 91.2.2 Number of innovative technologies and approaches successfully deployed incommercial practice 9

1.3 Obiactive – Effectively lead the technical aspects of the national Tanks Focus Area -(15%) 10

1.3.1 Definition oftechnical solutions across the DOE complex 101.3.2 Delivery of technology to solve complex-wide problems 101.3.3 Measuring oftechnical progress to baseline 11

2.0 SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE(25%) 182.1 Objective -- Conduct quality scientific effotisthat provide newinsights -(45%) 18

2.1.1 Results of Peer Reviews ofrelevance andexcellence, including Divisional Reviews 182.1.2 Recognition by the scientific community, including awards, invited talks at majorscientific meetings and service on major committees and scientific bodies. 192.1.3 Number of R&D 100 and Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) Awards 192.1.4 Number of publications in peer reviewed journals 20

2.2 Obiactiva -- Deliver high-value workthat irrelevant to DOEmissions ornational needs 202.2.1 Customer feedback onrelevance andexcellence ofcritiMlprojetis 202.2.2 Demonstrate project management discipline across product lines by meeting criticalmilestones and budget baselines 212.2.3 Number of quality Academic Partnerships 22

3.0 SCIENTIFIC &TECHNICALCONTRIBUTIONS (15%) 303.1. Obiective – Develop and apply innovative arms control, nonproliferation, and intelligencetechnologies that enhance national security and reduce the danger from weapons of massdestruction. (30%) 30

3.1.1 Number ofrelevant contributions tonational secutiw problem solutions. 303.1:2 Wiley Laboratory contributions addressing national security problems. 31

3.2. Obiective – Diversify the Laboratory science and technology (S&T) Energy Business.(30%) 31

3.2.1 ... . D~eraificstion of.the S&T based’ener9Y busin=s. 323.3 Obiective - Develop and expand fundamental research programs coupled to the mission ofDOE and other mission oriented agencies. (15%) 33

3.3.1 Number ofstaffobtaining PIstatus on Pi-initiated fundamental research grants 343.3.2 Agencies providing fundamental research funds 34

3.4 Obiective - Develop research programs within the Wiley Laborato~ that effectively use

o

its resources supporting both fundamental and applied research needs. (15%) 343.4.1 Wley Laboratov research tinting FY1999against theprojected research cuwe 34

Bwldte W 1998PerformanceEvalwm. A@emw”t

DCWRL97-74Rem!,” 1, 6w98

3.5 Obiective - Diversify the environmental science and technology base and increase thescientific and technical contributions to clients. (1O%) 36

3.5,1 Number of environmental S&T clients 36

4.0 OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE (20%) 464.1 OMective -Establish fu[lintegration of ES&H activities intowork practices andmanagement atall Laboratory levels. (34%) 46

4.1.1 Mnemanagers andstaffthroughout the Laborato~are clearly responsible forES&H performance, 464.1.2 ES& Hroles, responsibilities, accountabilities andauthorities areclearly establishedthroughout the Laboratory. 474.1.3 Staff Competent andlevel ofknowledge throughout the Laborato~isCommensurate with assigned responsibilities. ,. 484.1.4 Aproper balance ofpriorities beWeenthe science andtechnology mission andES&H performance is achieved throughout the Laboratory. 514,1.5 ES& Hstandards andrequirements areclearly identified. 524.1.6 Workauthorizations andcontrols aretailored towork hazards. 53

4.2 Obiective - Achieve operational excellence in worker safety and health, andenvironmental protection (33%) 54

4.2:1 Occtipational Safgtyand Health (33%) 544.2.2 Radiologic@ “Control ‘(34%). . . . . . . . . .. . . .’, 574.2.3 Waste Management and Environmental Protec;on (33%j ““’ 60

4.3. Obiective - Achieve excellence in the management and use of Laboratory facilityassets. (33%) 66

4.3.1 “Physical asset ac@ieition& arid modifications follow an integrated and systematicprocess (25%) 664.3.2 Utilization of space is commensurate with science and technology ~ssion needs(35%) 694.3.3 Maintenance requirements and work performance ensures physical assetavailability forplanned use (25%) 714.3.4 Surplus physiMl assets aremanaged toreduce costandtisk (15%) 74

Critical Outcome Performance Rating 79

5.0 LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT (15%) 945.1 OMactive -The Contractor's leaders/managers create aworkenvironment that issupportive of innovation. (30YO) 94

5.1.1 Composite evaluation of Leadership and Management focus areas as determinedby 1998 Quality of Worklife (QWL) survey. 94

5.2 Obiective - Battelle Leadership effectively uses self-assessment to monitorperformance and to drive needed improvements enabling DOE to optimize oversightactivities. (40%) 96

5.2.1 Contractor'a lnternai Oversigh~s annual averaged rating of the Divisions/Directorates self-assessment program performance 965.2.2 DOES satisfaction with the implementation of the Contractor’s self-assessmentprocess, 97

5.3 Obiective - Provida effective and efficient business management that enablesaccomplishment of objectives. (30%) 97

5.3.1 :Research/supports tafflabor”ratio, 965.3:2 Average costperreaearch FTE ,, 995.3.3 DOES evaluation of overall Contractor performen~’ in the businessmanagement functional areas 1005.3.4 Internal customer satisfaction with the quality and effectiveness of businessmanagement functions delivered products and services 102

,, Bmelle W 1998Perfonmrw Evdwio. A@,me.t

LXXJRL97.74Rewwan 1.6 ‘W98

6.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS (5%) 1096.1 Obiective - Battelle will serve the communities to further enhance the Laboratory’sstatus as a valued corporate citizen of the Northwest Region. (35%) 109

6.1.1 Feedback from the local communities regarding their involvement in, andunderstanding of, the Laboratory’s missions and programs. 1096.1.2 Feedback from Northwest regulators regarding their involvement in, andunderstanding of, the Laborato~’s missions and programs. 110

6.2 Obiective - Battelle will put technology to work in the Tri-Cities and region to createand sustain a diversified and strong economy. (40%) 111

6.2.1 The number of new businesses started in the area. 1116.2.2 The proportion of businesses started in FY 1997 that are sustained through thesubsequent fiscal year. 1116.2.3 Number of technology based jobs created or sustained. 111

6.3 Obiactive - Battelle will continue/establish partnerships with local and regionalorganizations to enhance science, mathematics, and technology education reform effortsin schools. (25%) 112

Ill.

6.3.1 Number of partnerships between Battelle and school districts and otharacademic support organizations in support of science, mathematics, and technologyeducation raform. 1126.3.2 Number of teacher and student (K-14) appointees from local/regional academicorganizations who participate in research/education appointments at PNNL. 113

SELF-ASSESSMENT 120

APPENOIX A CHANGE CONTROL TRACKING SHEET 121

APPENDIX E POINT OF CONTACT MATRIX 122

,,! Baliell, W 1998PerformanceEvaluationAwement

COEJSL97.74RevisionJ, U6198

INTRODUCTION

Fiscal Year 1998 represents the second full year utilizing a results-oriented, performance-basedcontract. This document describes the critical outcomes, objectives, performance indicators,expected levels of performance, and the basis for the evaluation of the Contractors performancefor the period October 1, 1997 through September 30, 1998, as required by Articles entitled Useof Objective Standards of Performance, Self Assessment and Performance Evaluation andCritical Outcomes Review of the Contract DE-AC08-76RLO1830. In partnership with theContractor and other key customers, the Department of Energy (DOE) Richland OperationsOffice has defined six critical outcomes that same as the core for the Contractors performanceevaluation. The Contractor also utilizes these outcomes as a basis for overall management of theLaboratory.

As stated above six critical outcomes have been established for FY 1998. These outcomes arebased on the following needs identified by DOE-HQ, RL and other customers of the Laboratory.Our Energy Research customer desires relevant, quality and cost effective science. OurEnvironmental Management customer wants technology developed, demonstrated, and deployedto solve environmental cleanup issues. To ensure the diversification and viability of thaLaboratory as a National asset, RL and HQ alike wont to increase the Science and Technicalcontributions of PNNL related to its core capabilities. RL wants improvedleadership/management, cost-effective operations, and maintenance of a work environment,which fosters innovative thinking and high morale. RL and HQ alike desire compliance withenvironment, safety and health (ES&H) standards and disciplined conduct of operations forprotection of the worker, environment, and the public, As with all of Hanford, DOE expectscontribution of the Laboratoy to the economic development of the Tri-Cities community, and theregion, to build a new local economy that is less reliant on the Hanford mission, as well asenhancing the status of the Laboratory as a valued corporate citizen of the Northwest Region.The Critical Outcome system focuses all of these customer desires into specific objectives andperformance indicators, with supporting measures to track and foster continued improvement inmeeting the needs (outcomes) of the Laboratory’s customers,

Section I provides information on how the overall performance rating for the Contractor will bedetermined.

Section II provides the detailed information concerning critical outcomes, objectives, performanceindicators and expectations of performance.

Section Ill describes the commitments for documenting and reporting the Laboratory’s self-evaluation.

I Bxtelte FY 1998?crfmcm=EvaluationAWCemmt

DOFJRL-97-74Revision1, 6K198

L DETERMINING THE CONTRACTOR’S PERFORMANCE RATING

The FY1998Batielle pefiormance evaluation will redetermined usinga process whereinprogress against each Petiormance lndicatorwilI result inacorresponding point value. Thepointvalues of each Performance Indicator will be taken from the associated Contingency Diagram,Points for each Performance Indicator will be added to determine a numeric rating for thecorresponding Objective.

The sum of the points for each Objective supporting a Critical Outcome will then be weightedaccord!ng to thk agreement and added to determine the point value for the Critical Outcome, Thepoint value for each Critical Outcome will determine an adjectival rating in accordance with thecorresponding table for each Critical Outcome. The adjectival rating and corresponding pointvalue for each Critical Outcome will be weighted in accordance with the Table A, below, and willbeadded todetermine the Contractor’s point total. Thetotal points will becompared tothe scalein Table B, below, to determine an overall Contractor adjectival rating.

This technique carries raw points and weighted points forward through the entire process andprovides information regarding performance at each of the Performance Indicator, Objective,Critical Outcome andoverall Laboratory levels. Adetailed explanation is provided below.

Performance Indicator Score WK?10DMt3r)~ Raw scores for each Performance Indicator aredetermined by plotting year-end performance on the associated Contingency Diagram and addingthe Effectiveness points accumulated along the Y-axis and translating that level to the appropriatenumber value using the scales for each indicator found in this document,

Evaluation of Objectives: Point scores for each Objective are determined by adding the individualEffectiveness scores for each Performance Indicator from the associated Contingency Diagram.The totals of each of the Objetilves are then converted to the 5 point scale utilized by DOE (1.0 -5.0) utilizing the normalization table for each Objective. Each Objective is then weightedaccording to the weighings provided in each Critical Outcome section.

Critical Outcome Evaluation: Numeric Critical Outcome scores are weighted as defined in Table Abelow and are summed to determine the Contractor’s overall weighted evaluation score.

Determining the Overall Contractor Adiecfival Ratinq Thetotal Critical Outcome score iscompared to an adjectival rating scale, see Table B below, to determine the overall Contractorrating for Fiscal Year 1998.

Note: Allnumeric values that have been nomalized tothe5point s~lespecified in thisdocument will be rounded to the nearest tenth of a point using the standard rounding conventionof x.49 and less rounds down to the nearest tenth, while x.50 and greater rounds up to thenearest tenth. Rounding will be performed at each calculation level.

BaltelleFV 1998Perfomunc. EvaluationAsreemm,t

CCHRL-97-74Rwm,m 1.614J98

Critical Outcome Adjectival Score Weight Weighted ScoreRating

Environmental Technology 20%

Scientific Excellence 25%

Scientific and Technical 15%Contributions

Operational Excellence 20%

Leadership & Management 15%

Community Relations 5%

Total

Table A. FY 1998 Contractor Evaluation Score Calculation

Total Score 5.0 -4.5 4.4 -3.5 3.4 -2.5 2.4- 1.5 <1.5

Final Rating Outstanding Excellent Good Marginal Unsatisfactory

Table B. Overall Contractor Adjectival Rating Scale

Il. CRITICAL OUTCOMES, Objectives &PERFORMANCE lNDlCATORS

Background

Toensure both theshort and long-term abili~ofthe Pacific Notihwest Nat[onal LaboratoVtomeet DOE missions and provide high-value products and services to the DOE and othercustomers, the DOE-RL, inpartnership with thecontractor, evaluated OOE and other customerneeds and current operating environments to develop the Laboratory’s six Critical Outcomes.While they are validated annually the Critical Outcomes typically have a 3-5 year time horizon,

The outcome-oriented approach focuses the evaluation of the Contractor’s performance againstthese critical outcomes. Progress against these outcomes ismeasured through theuseofspecific performance indicators that focus on end-results or impact and not on processes oractivities. Process andinput related petiormance indictors will reutilized bythe Contractor staffand management cooperate the Laboratory, however, these measures arenot embodied withinthe formal contract upon which performance is measured.

B3ttdle IV 1998%%nnanccEv,luauon Awemmt

mF/sl-97-74Revmmn1,6/6/98

Performance Expectations

With the six Critical Outcomes as a framework, DOE-RL and Contractor staff have teamed todevalop mutually-agreed upon objectives and performance indicators. In addition, considerableeffort has been devoted to developing an understanding of the performance expectationsassociated with each of the performance indicators. The specific performance expectations andassociated performance ratings are contained within this document.

While the Critical Outcomes describad herein represent the currant set for the Contractor theycan also be changed as prevailing scientific, political and/or aconomic factors change. When thishappens, tha objectives and tha resulting performance indicators will also ba altared to ansuremovement of the Laboratory in a direction consistent with the expectations of its customers. Thecontent of this document will be managed via formal changa control. Changes to tha FY 1998Performance Evaluation Agreement will be documented by completing the Change ControlTracking Sheet (see Appendix A). Tha sheet is salf-explanatory and require tha concurrence ofboth RL and the Contractor Critical Outcome Owners as well as a documented description of theproposed modification and a documented rationale for the modification.

Once the Critical Outcome Owners have concurred with the modification, RL staff should forwardtha form with the prescribed attachments to Terry L. Davis at mail stop K8-50. Contractor staffshould forward the change control form, with attachments, to Randy R. LaBarge at mail stop K1-30. They shall ensure that all required information has been provided and that both CriticalOutcome Ownars hava concurred in the modification. The modification will then be log in andfinal RL and Contractor approvals obtained as necassary. Once approvad the document will beupdated through RL Document Control and revisad pages will be issued.

Responsibility Matrix

Appendix B identifies the RL and Contractor Critical Outcoma Owners and points-of-contact foreach of the objectives and performance indicators.

Critical Outcomes, Objectives, and Performance Indicators

The following sections dascribe the critical outcomes, thair supporting objectives, and associatedperformance indicators for FY 1998.

4 Bandle R’ 1998Pe!fonnanceEvaluationA-at

DWJRL.97.74Rwision t, 6!6!98

1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY (20%)

Critical Outcome

Battelle will be instrumental in the development, demonstration and deployment of new andinnovative technologies and approaches that 1) allow environmental cleanup to be done faster, atlower cost, or more effectively, 2) minimize wasfe generation, 3) enhance the effectiveness ofwaste treatment processes, or 4) result in inherently clean and energy efficient industrialprocesses. Beceuse of theneed toincrease theimpact of the Laborato~'s scientific andtechnical contributions, the development, demonstration, and deployment of technologies and

approaches may nOt be limited to environmental restoration or waste management technology,but may also include broader environmental technologies of interest to the Department of Energy,(e.g., groundwater monitoring and modeling). Classified programs are not included in fhis CriticalOutcome.

The ability of the contractor to meet the following performance objectives is heavily dependent on

appropriate fundin9(EM-50, Tanks Focus Area, Hanford, brother). Intheevent funding lavelsshould decline to a point which may effect the accomplishment of the objectives and/or any of thecorresponding performance indicators shall constitute the renegotiation of such objectives and/orperformance indicators utilizing proper change control processes as identified within theintroduction of this document,

Definitions:

Innovative Technologies: Technologies, approaches, or systems that demonstrate a significantadvance in the state of the art or represent a new application of existing technology to a methodorprocess with theresult ofimproved cost, schedule, safe~, and/or effectiveness. A project thatcontains or has the potential to contain one or more of the following attributes (without adverselyeffecting the others) shall meet the criteria for innovative technology 25% reduction in life cyclecost, 25% reduction in schedule, significant safety enhancement, and/or significant program riskreduction, and/or other criteria as definad by the user or their rapresentativa.

Figures 1A, 1B and 1C document tha associated agreements on performance expectations in theform of contingency functions for all of the performance indicators.

1.1 Objective -Develop innovative technologies andapproaches -(4O%)

Performance Indicators

1.1.1 Number ofinnovative technologies andapproaches successfully demonstrated

A successful demonstration is defined as the completion of an activity that providessu~cient performance and cost data to enable the user to evaluate the innovativetechnology against alternatives and to support a decision as to viability for furtherdevelopment, deployment, or commercialization.

A funded demonstration is defined as an activity that has been funded at a levelagreeable to both the client and the Laboratory for performance of the task, for the fullduration of the expectad pariod of performanceDescription: This indi~torwill measure those activities thatenable theevaluation of aninnovative technology and approaches or system against user derived performancerequirements. For EM-5Oprojects, petiomance requirements may be derived tom

5 Batte]leW 198 Pcrfomce EvaluationAwmmt

DOFJSL-97-7’4Rwwon 1, 6JW98

STCG needs; for other projects, performance requirements shall be developed throughclose consultation with the user to ensure responsiveness to user need(s). Fundedprojects shall be evidence thet identified needs are addressed. The demonstrations to beincluded in this indicator will be those that provide technical data required to enabla anoperational entity, such as an M&O contractor, their subcontractor, or an industrialpartner to evaluate the innovative technology against alternatives and/or select theinnovative technology or system for further development or deployment. This indicatoralso includes pre-production demonstrations of new software (beta tests not upgrades),the deVeiDpment of methodologies for evaluating innovative technologies againstbaselines.

Baseline Information: Baseline information for this performance indicator is limited, andFY97 PNNL performance may not be an appropriate indicator of expected FY98performance due to the uncertainty in funding. The number of innovative technologydemonstrations is used to evaluate performance in the absence of definitive informationregarding the impact of an innovative technology demonstration.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: In the first quarter of FY 1998, theknDWninnovative technology demonstrations for measuring this performance indicatorwill be identified. DOE-RL and the Contractor will agree to this list which will be updatedon an as needed basis and statused quarterly for RL. Once a potential demonstrationhas been placad on the list, the only way in which it will be removed from the list is if thescope changes or funding is raduced or canceled by the client. Demonstrations may besubstituted and added to the list, providing DOE-RL approval. Failure to successfullycomplete the demonstrations on this list will negatively impact the performanceevaluation. The spirit of this indicator is to measure the most critical/significantdemonstration activities of the Laboratoy,

Performance Evaluation: For EM-50 funded projects, and where funding is provided, areport shall be prepared describing the innovative technology and the demonstration todocument the activity and convey results to other potential users. The report willdocument needs addressed and will also contain appropriate cost data and wheresupported by the client, life-cycle cost benefit analysis; data from this analysis would beconsidered by DOE in the avent incentive fee is earned as a result of the demonstration(incentive fee must not exceed benefit tO ha government resulting from activity). Fwnon-EM-50 projects, reports as required by the client will be documented by inclusion inthe project tile. In all cases, the outcome of includad activities will ba documented in the“Milestone Status / Activity Acceptance and Completion” report format, which will includea brief description of naeds addressed, and the potential benefits, economic andotherwise, that may be darived from scale-up and deployment of the technology,

Performance against this Performance Indicator will be measured by the number ofdemonstrations successfully performed. Failure to cDmplete a demonstration will result init not being counted against the requirement. Additional demonstrations of the samatechnology, at any location, are not eligible for additicmal credit,

1.1.2 Provide significant solutions to Hanford problems/neads

6

Description: This indicator will measure and enhance the focus of Contractor activities inaddressing Hanford science needs and technical gaps conducted at the request of thaclient. First, the Contractor will evaluate the science and technology needs at Hanford asdeveloped by the ERC, PHMC, and STCG to identify the basic research, appliadresearch, advanced development, demonstration requirements, and deploymentoPPofiunities. This information will be used tO address OER, EM, NAS, Focus Area, ate.,questions on Hanford Science and Technology needs, identii critical research araas

Baadle FY 1998Po%rnmnceEvalwJon AsIwmen,

DOm-97.74Revmon 1, 6J6198

needing investigation, and to provide an opportunity for partnerships with DOE-RL,industry, and academia. Contractor activities in support of PHMC, ERC, DOE and STCGtechnology assessment, evaluation, and insertion will be applied to this performanceindicator. Activities undertaken are to be of a technical nature rather than purelyadministrative and may include technical and engineering services, studies andconsultations. The resulting products may be engineered solutions, new approaches toaddressing existing problems, new technologies, improvements to existing approaches ortechnologies, and adaptations and/or applications of technologies or approachesdeveloped elsewhere. Problems that may be addressed by Hanford technical solutionsare not limited to environmental restoration or waste management, but may include anyof the scientific, technical, and engineering issues facing DOE-RL and its contractors.These activities may be those that 1) reduce technical uncertainty, 2) address safetyquestions, 3) provide process improvement, 4) identify, evaluate and recommendinnovative technologies, 5) provide technology assessments, 6) submit proposals thataddress the STCG, EM programmatic, and EM science needs at Hanford.

Baseline Information: This indicator has been restructured to focus on technicalsolutions. Administrative efforts have been eliminated and proposals have been re-emphasized (count and point). Based on the above and anticipated reduction in FY98funding, FY97 is not a good indicator for FY96 performance. The baseline is establishedusing FY96 anticipated funding and FY97 performance in these areas of emphasis, TheContractor shall identify all activities conducted to address Hanford needs on a quarterlybasis and shall provide the information to DOE-RL for review/validation.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: Currently, the laboratory is solvingHanford problems in a number of areas; however, DOE-RL wants the Laboratoy toincrease the emphasis on Hanford technical solutions,

Performance Evaluation: The number of expected activities will be established anddiscussed with DOE-RL. The results of the activities performed to meet the requiredperformance will be documented, by providing DOE-RL the following information:

. Identification of a specific DOE-RL or contractor client

. A description of the problem or need being addressed

. A description of the approach/activities the Contractor undertook to address the needor problem

A point system will be used to evaluate performance against this indicator.

●

●

✎

✎

✎

The main focus of this metric should be on Laboratory technical input to Hanfordoperating elements such as engineering requests, etc.

The efforts taken to identify and respond to technical gaps will be documented in amatrix or tabular fashion and transmitted to DOE-RL in a letter report and uponapproval will earn 10 points.

One point will be allocated for each project completed for Hanford clients thatproduce a technical product such as a report or other technical deliverable during theyear. One point will also be awarded each EM-50 task that addresses one or moreHanford needs.

Proposals prepared by the Contractor, where required to address Hanford problemsand environmental technology needs, will be allocated X point, each.

No items to be included on this list that are also included as a demo or deployment.

7 Sand], W 1$98PerfonnmceEvaiuauonAsmernmt

IY3EIRL-97.74Revision1. 6W98

DOE-RL may award additional credit for completion of particularly significant activities asdeemed appropriate by DOE-RL.

1.1.3 Number of new environmental technology concepts identified or disclosed

Description: This indicator will measure the number of new environmentally relatedinvention reports that are reported to PNNL Intellectual Property Services and to DOE-OCC (Orlce of Chief Council). This measure reflects the Laboratory’s efforts to developand capture naw technology ideas. This is a leading edge indicator of development ofconcepts and ideas leading to new technologies and approaches. It is generally aprecondition for innovative technology development and deployment.

Baseline Information: This is a new performance indicator and as such no baselineexists. We will use information regarding past invention reports as an indicator ofperformance expectations.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: Previous experience with inventionreports will be used to establish expected performance. However, experience has shownthat the creative process is spontaneous and poorly understood. DOE and theLaborato~ management recognize that the documentation of new concepts is animportant step in getilng these ideas reviewed and considered for further development.

Performance Evaluation: The number of invention reports (Transmittal of NewTechnology forms) filed will be used to measure performance against this indicator.DOE-RL will be provided with quarterly updatea on the performance against this indictor,

1.2 Obiective - Ensure deployment of innovative technologies and approaches - (45%)

Definitions:

A successful deployment is defined as inclusion of the innovative technology as part ofthe users baseline.

Commercial practice is defined as usa by industry, DOE contractors, DOD contractors,or othar licensees in routine practice as a part of their baseline suite of tools.

Innovative technologies held or offered “on the shel~ but not utilized in active practice arenot acceptable under this definition.

A funded deployment is defined as inclusion of the innovative technology in a baselineactivity that has been funded at a level agreeable to both the user and the Laboratory forperformance of the task, for the full duration of the expected period of performance.

A Business Arrangement is an association of two or more people or organizations whoagree to share in the profits and losses of a business ventura.

A License gives a licensee the right to use something of the Iicensor’s (which mayinclude technology, intellectual property, software, know how, patent, copyright) in aspecific field of use as indicated in the license agreement.

8 Bmdk I+’ 1998PerformanceEvaluationAWWIEIIt

rxxJ’F&97-74Revision1, 6/6198

Joint Ventures is defined as”a cooperative relationship between two or more companiesthat set up an separate organizational structure.


1.2.1 Number of formal expressions of interest entered into

Description: This indicator will measure the number of CRADAS, MOUS, licenses,business arrangements, and joint ventures established during the year. These measuresreflect the Contractor’s efforts to create opportunities for commercialization of Laboratoryand other Government developed innovative technologies. This indicator is a “leadingedge” indicator for indicator 1.2,2, as it is generally a precondition for innovativetechnology deployment by industrial partners.

Baseline Information: Battelle historical performance was estimated using the abovedefinitions.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: None identified

Performance Evaluation: Performance against this Performance Indicator will bemeasured by the number of CRADAS, MOUS, licenses, business arrangements, and jointventures established during the year.

1.2.2 Number of innovative technologies and approaches successfully deployed in commercialpractice

Description: This indicator will measure the transfer to a user of hardware, software, andmethodologies for actual uae in their field of application. This will meaaure the end resultof a technically sound, user driven program.

Baseline Information: Battelle historical performance was estimated using the abovedefinitions, The number and location of innovative technology deployments are beingused to evaluate performance in the abaence of definitive information regarding theimpact of an innovative technology deployment,

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: This indicator measures activities thathave a significant time lag, that is, the deployments in FY 1997 will have been in processfor 3-5 years in various stages of development. There will bean attribution of value forthe activity, The relative value of deployments is reflected in the point system describedbelow,

Performance Evaluation: The outcome of included activities will be documented in the“Milestone Status /Activity Acceptance and Completion” report format, which will includea brief description of the deployment, and the cost/economic and other benefits, that maybe derived from its use. For EM-50 funded deployments, and where funds are provided,a report shall be prepared describing the innovative technology and the deployment andto convey results to other potential usera. The report will also contain a life-cycle costbenefit assessment data from this analysis would be considered in the event incentivefee is earned as a result of the deployment (incentive fee must not exceed benefit to thegovernment resulting from activity).

*A point system will be used to evaluate performance. Four points will be awarded for the firsttime an innovative technology is deployed at Hanford. Three points will be awarded for each time

9 Battcll, FY 1998Perf.omce EvaluationAmmm,

DOFJRL97 -74Revision1, &16B8

an innovative technology is first deployed at each of the other DOE sites or on a particular DOEwaste stream at other locations, Two points will be awarded the first time an innovativetechnology is deployed at separate non-DOE government sites. One point will be awarded forthe first time an innovative technology is deployed at separate commercial or private sites, with amaximum of three separate single commercial points for each innovative technology, Multipledeployments at any site or location will not ba counted, The maximum lifetime points awarded forany one innovative technology is limited to rive.

1.3 Obiective - Effectively lead the technical aspects of the national Tanks Focus Area -(1 5%)


1.3.1 Definition of technical solutions across the DOE complex

This performance indicator will meesure the effectiveness of the TFA Tachnical teem inworking with site users, technical advisors, and DOE-HQ users to develop technologydevelopment recommendations that are responsive to their needs. The TFA TechnicalTeam’s multiyear technical response to site needs will be the subject of evaluation. Theevaluation will take place after the technical response evaluation and prioritizationmeeting to be held in the midyear time tiame. The DOE TFA Management Team willevaluate the TFA Technical Team performance by means of a survey. The subjectsurvey will be developad jointly by DOE-RL and TFA Technical Team prior to the end ofthe first quarter FY 1998 and will be approved by RL. DOE-RL will issue and receive theresults of the survey for analysis. The Survey is to be issued following the mid-yeartechnical responses and prior to the end of the Fiscal Year.

1.3.2 Delive~ of technology to solve complex-wide problems

DOE-EM has set overall performance metrics for high-level waste for FY 1998-2000.EM-30 identifies number of canisters produced and number of tanks closed, EM-40identifies numbar of tanks cleaned and ready for closure. The TFA supports thesemeasures by providing technical solutions to the key problems associated with meetingDOE-EM’s metrics. The technical solutions fall into the functional areas of wastemobilization and retrieval, tank closure, waste pretreatment, and waste immobilization.Safety, characterization, and monitoring requirements are integrated into the technicalsolutions in each function area.

Technical solutions will fall into three categories: damonstrations, deployments, ordelivery of data from testing, A successful demonstration is defined as the completion ofan activity that provides sufficient performance and cost data to enable the user toevaluate the technology against alternatives and to support a decision as to viability fordeployment. A deployment is defined as testing of a new technology in the workingenvironment, Data delivered refers to data from hot or cold demonstrations or Iaboratoytesting that is used directly by sites to me@ either regulatory, privatization, or designrequirements. A listing of potential demonstrations, deployments or data to be deliveredin FY 1998 has been prepared, agreed to, and will be maintained by DOE-RL and theContractor.

Performance will be measured by percent of compilation of planned demonstrations,deployments, and delivery of test data at end of year. Demonstrations, deployments anddelivery of test data will each be identified by Technical Task Plan (TTP) number and by

o

10 Smell, I+’ 19+8Perfomce EvaluationAwe.mcnt

1.3.3

cOm-97 .74Rerisi.n 1. 616J98

milestone identification number. Milestone completion will be confirmed through

concurrence letter to the site for whom the work was conducted.

Measuring of technical progress to baseline

The TFA is concerned with and actively maneges the cost and schedule performance ofits technical activities. Technical progress as assessed by the TFA Technical Team isoften the first indication of cost and schedule issues. The TFA Technical Team willidentify technical issues that have cost and schedule impact, propose corrective actions,and coordinate corrective actions that will result in total carryover of less than 10%. Thisindicator will be measured by TFA FY 1998 year end carryover. It is recognized that tomeet this performance indicator that DOE-RL and the Contractor will work as partners tocarry out required changes.

Critical Outcome Performance Rating

Figurea 1A, IB and IC document the associated agreements on performance expectations in theform of contingency functions. The overall performance rating for this outcome will be determinedby summing the effectiveness scores for all Objectives as depicted in Table 1.1, normalizing thescores using Table 1.2 and comparing the normalized sum to the rating scale inTable 1.3.

11 Baud. FY 1998t’afmmance EvaluationAsmmwnt

IXXAU..97-74Revision1, 6/6198

Figure 1A, Environmental Technology Objective 1.1, Contingency Diagram

r1039599853.375706560

L4035?025201$1050

.5.30.,5

4 /

63.35.70.75m-35-$0-95

.3cc

PetfmarmeQWJ-

1 1.1.12 1.1,23 1.13

Baltdk FY 1998Perfomce EvaluationAwmmt

IXXCQL-97-74Rwisio. 1.68698

WInuz

u>

uuLu

Figure IB, Environmental Technology Objective 1.2, Contingency Diagram

lW 1SswS5ea7570 ,/7AH

65w55%454035m25m?51050

/21

-5.;0.<5-20-25-.?3.3540-45-50.55-w

n

Perfcmmace-55 mm-70 1 1,2.1.75 2 12.2.84.s5-?0.95

.1032 ,1

Perfmance Indicator SCALES1 Fonml ExPreWc.m o I I 1 I I I I [51 I I I I I I [91 I I 1, I I I 132 Tech. De@oynenls 01 4< I 18 I I 1221 I I 28

13 Bandk FY 1998Perhmnc< EvaluationAwmr,t

rmFmL-97-74Rensmn 1, 6/6/98

Figure 1C, Environmental Technologyj Objective 1.3 Contingency Diagram

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

P0

-5

-10

-!5

-20

-25

-30

-35

40

45

-50

-55

40 3 /

.65

-70

-75

-80

-85

-90

-95 /nPerformance

S.uaLewicat!x

1 1.3.1

2 1.3,2

3 1.3.3

1 Suwey Response

2 Milestones

3 Cost Varianm

SCALES40 4.5 5.0 5.5 6,0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8,5 9 9,5

70 725 75 77.5 @l es s 87.5 En U5 s ~,,~ ,~

-5 0 5 ?0 ,5

14 Bme!k FY 1998Perform.,. EvaluationAmment

DOEIRL-97-74Rem,,. 1, 6,6198

ELEMENT Perf:Or:e~ce Effectiveness Value Weight WeightedScore Points Points

1. Environmental Technology1.1 Develop innovativetechnologies and approaches1.1.1 Number of innovativetechnologies and approaches’successfully demonstrated1.1.2 Provide significant solutions toHanford problems/needs1.1.3 Number of new environmentaltechnology conceptsidentifiedldisclosed

Obj 1.1 40%Total

1.2 Ensure innovativetechnologies and approaches aredeployed1.2.1 Number of formal expressionsof interest entered into1.2.2 Number of innovativetechnologies and approachessuccessfully deployed in commercialpractice

Obj 1.2 45%Total

1.3 Effectively lead the technicalaspects of the national TanksFocus Area.1.3.1 Effective definition of technicalsolutions across the DOE complex1.3.2 Adequate technology delive!yto solve complex-wide problems1.3.3 Adequate tracking of technicalprogress to baseline

Obj 1.3 15%Total

Total

Table 1.1- Environmental Technology Critical Outcome Performance Rating Development

15 Baud!, FY 1998Perfomce Evduati.a”Awemnt

KETW-97-74Rwimn 1, (J6198

Obj. 1.1 Obj. 1.2 Obj. ‘1.3Develop Innovative Deploy Innovative ~anka ~oc”a ~ea

Techoiogiee Technologies Rating

235 200 235 5.0223 190 223 4.9212 180 212 4.8200 170 200 4.7188 160 188 4.6176 150 176 4.5165 140 165 4.4153 130 153 4.3141 120 141 4.2129 110 129 4.1118 100 116 4.0106 90 106 3.994 80 84 3.882 70 82 3.771 80 71 3.659 50 59 3:547 40 47 3.435 30 35 3.324 20 24 3.212 10 120

3.10 0 3.0

-13 -10 -13 2.9-25 -20 -26 2.8-38 -30 -39 2.7-50 -40 -52 2.643 -50 -85 2.5-75 -80 -78 2.4-86 -70 -91 2.3-100 -80 -104 2.2-113 -90 -117 2.1-125 -100 -130 2.0-136 -110 -143 1.9-150 -120 -156 1.8-163 -130 -189 1.7-175 -140 -182 1.8-108 -150 -195 1.5-200 -160 -208 1.4-213 -170 -221 1.3-225 -180 -234 1.2-238 -190 -247 1.1-260 -200 -28a 1.0

Table 1.2- Environmental Technology Critical Outcome Score Normalization Table

16

rxxJRb97.74Ra’i,,on 1. 6J6/98

@Total Score 5.0- 4.5 4.4- 3.5 3.4- 2.5 2.4- 1.5 1.4- 1.0Final Rating I Outstanding I Excellent Good Marginal Unsatisfactory

Table 1.3- Environmental Technology Critical Outcome Final Rating

11 Battdk W 1998?crfonnmu EwIuOO” AFenWnt

DoEisL97-74Rwki.an 1,6w98

2.0 SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE (25%)

Critical Outcome

Battelle will deliver more and better R&D for each dollar, becoming the science and technologyprovider of choice in the markets the Laboratory serves.

2.1 Obiective -- Conduct quality scientific efforts that provide new insights - (45%)


2.1.1 Results of Peer Reviews of relevance and excellence, including Divisional Reviews

Description: The Director of Energy Research has primary responsibility for evaluatingscientific research. It is generally agreed that the evaluations will be based on fourcriteria:

. Quality of science

. Relevance to DOE missions or national needs● Effective & efficient research program management. Success in construction and operation of facilities

The Department’s Assistant Secretaries and the Director of Energy Research will providetheir evaluations to the DOE-RL Contracting Officer as primay input for this indicator.The results from these reviews, including performance levels and trends and Laboratovresponse to previous peer reviews on the same programs, will be summarized into anoverall evaluation and performance rating based on the standard adjectival (5 point)scale. Concurrence on this self-evaluation will be obtained from appropriate DOEorganizations,

Evaluations of the Divisional reviews (performed by Division Review Committees for eachLaboratory Research Dtvision) will be provided to the Director of PNNL. The results fromthese reviews, including performance levels and trends and Laboratoy response, will besummarized into an overall evaluation and performance rating based on the standardadjectival (5 point) scale.

Baseline information: Not applicable

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: Specific peer reviews to be conductedin any given year are determined by DOE Program Offices. Peer reviews currentlyanticipated for FY 1998 include all, or selected portions, of the following programs:

. Atmospheric Radiation Measurements Program: OHEWJASONS-EnvironmentalSciences Division

. Chemical Sciences Program: OBES-Chemical Sciences Division

. Materials Science Program: OBES-Matarials Science Division

. Tanks Focus Area Programs: OEM Tanks Focus Area Advisory Panel

18

The following Divisional reviews are planned:

Batklk FY 19% Paf.omce E“alua60nAwrnent

DCWRL.97.74Revision1, 6{6198

. Environmental and Health Sciences Division

. Environmental Technology Division● Energy Technology Division. National Security Division

Baseline Information: Not applicable

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: None

2.1.2 Recognition by the scientific community, including awards, invited talks at major scientificmeetings and service on major committees and scientific bodies.

Description: During FY 1997, data was collected in an attempt to baseline the types ofinvolvement and awards that will comprise “recognition by the scientific community”, aswell as the number of Contractor staff that receive such recognition. The three types of“recognition” information that were gathered included: General Awards, Invited Talks, andCommittee Service. A standard of quality and/or significance will be developed for eachrecognition type from which to judge the recognition for inclusion in this performanceindicator.

This data shall be tracked on a three-year rolling average, as the R&D 100 performanceindicator has been. Towards that end, the following is planned:

. When FY 1997 is complete, category scopes and numbers in each categoty will beestablished (“x” Awards, “y” Invited Talks, and “z” Committee service) and includedbased upon meet~ng the standard of quality mentioned above.

. Recognition data will continue to be gathered in FY 1998, with the FY 1998performance indicator target being established relative to the sum total of therecognition categories for FY 1997

. By FY 1999, data will exist to establish a three-year rolling average measurementbasis for Recognition by the Scientific Community.

Baseline Information: No baseline data is available for this indicator,

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: FY 1997=(x+ y + z). FY 1998 target foroutstanding: 11O% of FY 1997 performance. This data will be developed andincorporated through the approved change control process prior to the end of the firstquarter FY 1998,

2.1.3 Number of R&D 100 and Federal Laboratory Consortium (FLC) Awards

Description: The indicator will be based on a 3 year rolling average of the number ofR&D 100 and FLC Awards received by PNNL each year.

R&D Awards are submitted in the early spring for a summer notification.

The Laboratory is allowed a maximum of four FLC submissions in September forDecembar notification.

Baseline Information: Laboratory historical performance data is indicated below

Bmelle FY 1998Perfcm!anceEvdIuma Apemnt

ExxmL-97.74Reriwn 1, 416198

~~~~mmR&D 100 3 2 2 353FLC 3 4 3 3 3 4Total 6 6 5 6 6 7

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: None identified

2.1.4 Number of publications in pear reviewed journals

Description: This indicator represents the number of publications by staff in significanttechnical journals or publications on an annual basis, The number of publications by staff willbe determined by an annual search of the following commercially available databases forauthors affiliated with the Laboratory

.

.

.●

✎

●

●

●

Chemical Abstracts (Chemisby)SciSearchSocial SciSearch (Social Sciences)BIOSIS Previews (Life Sciences)INSPEC (Physics/Electronice/Electrical Engineering)Ei Compendex*Plus (Engineering)EMBASE(Siomedical)MEDLINE (Biomedical)

Note: FY 1997’s efforts to benchmark this parameter were unsuccessful: None of the othernational laboratories are currently obtaining this information, and hence no benchmarking ispossible. Efforts to begin understanding publication data have recently begun within theOffice of Basic Energy Research.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: The expectations for this indicator is basedon a projection from the data collected as of July 1997. Efforts to begin baselining their datahave recently bagun within the Office of Basic Energy Research. During FY 1996 we willreview their progress, and evaluate their process for our use in comparing the Laboratory toother national laboratories, As this data proves relevant, the resulting information will beused in determining FY 1999 performance levels,

2.2 Obiective -- Deliver high-value work that is relevant to DOE missions or national needs


2.2.1 Customer feedback on relevance and excellence of critical projects

Description: Customer faedback will be obtained through the use of a survey. Thesurvey is designed to solicit feedback along two dimensions: a) the strategic value of thework to the customer, and b) project performance, i.e., how well the Laboratory isperforming work on the project. The set of projects to be sutveyed will be identified bythe Laboratory Associate Laborato~ Directors and will be approved by the RL Science&Technology Programs Director.

The survey will be sent to the customer jointly by the RL Aasiatant Manager for Scienceand Technology and the Laboratory Director. Surveys will be returned to the Contracto!with a copy provided to RL.

20 Bmelte FY 1998Perfomce EvaluationA~em-s!t

COEJTW97.74Revision1.616198

The survey will use a 5 point rating scale and will also provide the customer with theOpportunity to provide written comments. The indicator will be reported in terms ofaverage score (rounded to the nearest 0,1) for each of the two dimensions (i.e., strategicvalue and project performance) for all projects surveyed, A minimum acceptableresponse level for a valid survey will be established and approved by RL prior to theissuance of the survey.

Baseline Information: Previous surveys conducted in FY 1995, FY 1996 and FY 1997provide some information to assist in setting performance expectations but due todifferences in projects sampled and survey content, previous customer feedback resultscan not be directly used to set current year expectations,

Performance Expatiation Related Assumptions: None

2.2.2 Demonstrate project management discipline across product lines by meeting criticalmilestones and budget baselines

Description In FY 1998, the measure of success will be to demonstrate effective projectmanagement discipline by incrementally improving upon the Lab’s FY 1997 project (costand schedule) execution baseline. To accomplish this, data will be collected throughoutFY 1998 horn a set of approximately 50 projects. The set of projects to be included inthis baseline will be identified by the Laboratory Associate LaboratoW Directors andapproved by the RL Science & Technology Programs Director.

The projects to be assessed will be those deemed significant or critical and attempts willbe made to make the set representative for the Laboratory, i.e. some constructionprojects, technical projects, and functional support projects. The final list of projects willbe developed by each Product Line Manager in partnership with DOE-RL by FebruaV28, 1996. The indicator will be reported as follows:

a) Budget Analysis. Increase in the percent of projects that are completed within theirbaseline budget.

b) Schedule Analysis: Increase in the parcent of all milestones that are completed on, orahead, of their scheduled baseline.

Criteria and Requirements: The intent of this effort is to leverage existing projectperformance information that is currently being used to monitor project progress and useit to better understand Contractor’s ability to plan and execute projects. DOE-RL’Sinvolvement is to assess overall project management performance within the Laboratoryand not to change or impact existing client relationships. The criteria for measuringproject execution will based upon actual performance against baseline budget andschedule information. The following two criteria will be applied to each selected project

A. Was the work completed within the agreed upon performance period and were keyinterim and final milestones completed as planned throughout the year?

B. Was work performed within the client’s agreed upon budget?

Baseline Information: Final FY 1997 baseline when available may indicate a need toadjust the FY 1998 performance levels. Any changes will be approved by DOE-RL andwill be incorporated within this document via the approved change control process.

21

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: None.

Sallc]leFY 1998Perform”c, Ev8)u60” A~mnt

COEJRL.97-74Revision1, 6J6J98

2,2.3 Number of quality Academic Partnerahipa

Description: This indicator measures the number of quality strategic partnershipsbetween the Laboratory and colleges, universities, and other academic supportorganizations that link institutional goals, interests, and capabilities so that substantivecollaborations may occur that enhance the research and education missions of thepartners.

Battelle will continue and/or establish strategic research/education partnerships withcolleges, universities and other academic suppori organizations that enhance theLaboratory’s science/technology mission. These partnerships will:

1. develop/enhance strategic research/education partnerships with Northwestcolleges and universities that strengthen specific core technical capabilities of theLaborato~, enhance the Laboratory’s science/technology mission, and supportthe research and education missions of Laboratory partners, and

2. develop/enhance integrated research/education partnerships andcollaborations with colleges, universities, and other organizations thataugmenffstrengthen the Laboratory’s mission and broad set of core technicalcapabilities, enhance the Laborato@ science/technology mission, and supportthe research and education missions of Laborato~ partners,

Progress during FY 1998 will be tracked and based on the following measures:

● The number of partners that meet the Laboratory’s quality criteria for research/educationpartnerships in 3 areas: informal/formal agreements, appointments, and substantiveinteractions/collaborations.

Baseline Information: Using data collected on academic collaborations in FY 1996,USEP established a baseline for partnerships. In FY 1997, there were a total of 55academic partners.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: In FY 1997 the 60 partners in this PIwere comprised of 40 partners representing colleges/universities and 20 partnersrepresenting K-12 institutions. The K-12 partners will be represented in the CommunityRelations Critical Outcome (6.0) in FY 1998.


Figures 2A and 2B document the associated agreements on performance expectations in theform of contingency functions. The overall performance rating for this outcome will be determinedby summing the effectiveness scores for all Objectives as depicted in Table 2.1, normalizing thescores using Table 2.2 and comparing the normalized sum to the rating scale inTable 2.3,

22

IXXAU.-97-74Revision1.616198

123

4

23

Figure 2A, Scientific Excellence Objective 2,1, Contingency Diagram

I.105.110.,?5.720.125.433.135-740

R% I

LJ2 2,1,23 2.1.34 2.1.4

Pe+cmmce lnc.aw SCALESPeer R6+e# Rwits M I G E IRF,cc@iin, % chan~e .,0

0.$ [ o 5

R&D 1W, FLCAWdS e,to

1,6$ ,m 7- IPeer Re$iO#edPub,, .2+

,ea.W .7, . ,2,

aBatisllew 1998Pcrf.mance Evdwio. Ag7ecnw,c

BOWRL.97 .74R<nston 1, .%,98

Figure 2B, Scientific Excellence Objective 2.2, Contingency Oiagram

cornwzu

e >iU

uLw

100

95

9085

80

75 <,:7065

60

5550

45

40

/

335

30

25

20

15

105 /,0

-5

-10

-15.20

-25-30

-35

.40-45

-50 t

.55

-60-65-70

-75

-80-85

-90-95

-100

-105-110-145

-120

_ 2,3’.....

ITPerfamance

Curve Mcatcx

1 2.2.2a

2 2.2.2b

3 2.2.3

Perfcfrmnce Indicabx

Cust Fe?dback - Value

Cust Feedback - Peif.

1 Prq Discipline Mrlestcnes

2 Prq Disciphe Budget

3 Academic Partnerships

See Figure 2C for tbe Erfeclivenes$ score fo, uws,.d,cMo,

& figure 2C for the Effe@iwwss Wore for ti,s i“dl~,C,F

.5% I I I 0% I I I I 5% I I I ~o% I I I ,5%I .2% o% 3% I 8% ,0% ,3%

I I I I 2022242% 28?032 .34 s284042444948s

24 Band], FY 1998Paf.omnce Ewluation AGW,K”C

COWRL-97-74Revision1, 616/98

Figure 2C, Scientific Excellence Objective 2.2, Contingency Diagram(Indicators 2.2.la & 2.2.lb)

5

I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I

1 2 3 4 5

100

.

80

30

-30—

-100

—

2.2.1 (b) Customer FeedbackProject Performance

FY98 Targets are: 4.0 for Strategic Value and 4.0 for Project Performance

Figure 2C

EFFEcTIvENEss

PoiNTs

BattelleI+ 1S98Pcrfwnmcc EvahatIon Amcmnt

COEJ?.L.97-74Revision1,616198

ELEMENT I Performance I EffectivenessLevel seers

2. Scientific Excellence2.1 Conduct quality scientificefforts that provide new insights.2.1.1 Results of Peer Reviews ofRelevance and Excellence, includingDivisional reviews2.1.2 Recognition by the scientificcommunity, including awarda, invitedtalks at major scientific meetirrga, andservice on major committees andscientific bodies2.1.3 Number of R&D1OOand FLCAwards2.1.4 Number of publications in peerreviewed journals

Obj 2.1Totel

2.2 Deliver high-value workthat isrelevant to DOEmiasionsornational needs.2.2.1 Customer feedback onrelevance and excellence of criticalprojects2.2.2 Demonstrate projectmanagement discipline across allproduct lines by meeting criticalmilestones and budget baselines2.2.3 Number and quality of academicpartnerships

Obj 2.2Total

—

.

—

—

—

—

Neight

m’-

‘0%

Total

WeightedPoints

Table 2.1 .Scientific Excellence Critical Outcome Petiormance Rating Development

26

KIEJW97.74Revision1.6W98

Obj. 2.1 Obj. 2.2

Table 2.2- Scientific Excellence Critical Outcome Score Normalization Table

a27 Balldk W 1998PerformanceEvaluationAmenwx

CQVR.L97 -74Rcvmon 1,.516198

Total Score 5.0- 4,5 1 4.4- 3.5 I 3.4- 2.5 2.4- 1.5Final Rating

I 1.4- 1.0Outstanding Excellent Good Marginal Unsatisfactory

Table 2.3- Scientific Excellence Critical Outcome Final Rating

28 BestclkFY 1998Pcrfomume EvaluationAsmcmm

IXXJRL-97.74Revision1,616198

eTHIS PAGE INTENTIALLY LEFT BLANK

e

Baaclk FY 1998?crbrmme EvaluationAwemenl

DOFJP.L.97-74Rem<.” 1. 6J6198

3.0 SCIENTIFIC &TECHNICAL CONTRIBUT1ONS (15%)

Critical Outcome

Battelle will increase the PNNL Scientific and Technical Contribution related to the corecapabilities and within mission, goals and objectives of the Department of Energy.

3.1. Obiective – Develop and apply innovative arms control, nonproliferation, and intelligencetechnologies that enhance national security and reduce the danger from weapons of massdestruction. (30%)


3.1.1 Number ofrelevant contributions tonational secuti~probiem solutions

Description: Thecontributions/solutionsthatNSDprovidesareatmultipleleveIsforvarious projects ornational security needs. Thescope identified forthis PerformanceIndicator is for contributions at a significant level, resulting from multiple years’ efforts inany area. (Examples from FY97would include: thetesting equipment developed for theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the training developed by NSD programs forCustoms agents.)

The Ieval of contributions under consideration here is such that the number ofsignificantly relevant contributions to national security problams in any year will be quitesmall.

Definitions:

Relevant contributions: Those contributions which provide a solution to a major nationalor international national security problem.

Baseline Information: None

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: Theprocess will be interactive anditerative betwean the DOE-RL and Contractor contacts:

a. Battelle will identify contributions by National Sacurity Division programs thatare relavant contributions to national security problems, along with a discussionof the impact to national security if the Contractor had not provided, thiscontribution.

b. DOE-RL will review input submitted by Battelle, discuss/revise as necessaryand concur or reject.

Performance Evaluation: Thelevel ofcontributions under consideration here are suchthat the number of significantly relevant contributions to national security problems in anyyear will be quite small - and will include no potential to lose points for not achieving any,

30 Bmelk FY 1998Pcrfomnce EvdIwJon A-,”,

3.1.2

DOEIRL97.74Revision1,&KJ98

Wiley Laboratory contributions addressing national security problems.

Description: This measure is the number of EMSL Technical Groups that are engaged inNSD projects. One of N.SD’s goals is to have, in the next 24 to 48 months, at least oneNSD project (LDRD, client funded, or other capability development project) in each EMSLTechnical Group, i.e, one project in each group at the lowest level of EMSL technicalorganization. Current data indicates that once a research group (capability) has beenaccesaad by NSD projects, the number of projects within that group rises rapidly. Hence,our assumption is that once initial access is gained, NSD clients will rapidly benefit fromthe full range of EMSL groups’ capabilities being applied to their problems.

Baseline Information: Although EMSt. is still changing and evolving in technical structureand organization, there are close to 20 Technical Groups at present. 5 NSD projects ofsome kind currently exist in 4 of them. Consequently, about 20% of EMSL TechnicalGroups are angaged in NSD-related projects.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: The best the Contractor could do in 2 to4 years would be 100% of the Technical Groups within EMSL doing some type of NSD-relatad project. Likewise, some groups are engaged in much more fundamental sciencethan others, generating a need to dtierentiate between the Technical Groups performingfundamental research veraus those performing applied research (e.g. computerprogramming teams within the Computing and Information Science Directorate.) Weestimate that of the current set of 20 technical groups, approximately 2Y3parformfundamental science, and the remaining 1/3 conduct somewhat more applied research.The projects developed for groups performing fundamental science may fall within thefundamental science product line if appropriate for sponsor. It ia the stratagic intent tobuild the program as quickly as possible, so penetration of groups at the 50% level is thetarget for FY98. (This is still true and no changes are proposed.)

Performance Evaluation:

EMSL Groups Performing Applied Science: For FYI 998, the worst case would be noneof these working on NSD related projects. The outstanding casa translates to amaximum of 10 groups with NSD projects in FYI 998.

3.2. Obiective – Diversify the Laboratory science and technology (S&T) Energy Business. (30%)

Definitions:

S&T Energy Business is defined as: Work conducted primarily within the Laboratory’aEnergy Technology Division: Public Energy sub-sector, the Energy Product Davelopmant &Applications Product Line, tha Energy O&M product line, and the Northwest Alliance ofTransportation Technology (NAIT) related work conducted in the Materials and ApplicationsProduct Line, and in the Advanced Manufacturing Product Line. This measure is focused on

31 Smclle W 1998Perfmn!a!m EvaluationAsreenm

COEJIU..97.74Revision1.616198

enhancement of the Contractor’s core capabilities which are aligned with DOES missions andobjectives.

Performance Indicator

3.2.1 Diversification of the S&T based energy business.

Descri@iorY IXversification of PNNL’s ~ ‘ Energy Business and itsassociated client base is a means of developing and enhancing the core capabilities ofthe Labe@y, and to increase the impact of DOE in new application domains, Whilemaintaining the current Energy Business is extremely important to PNNL ~,successful client diversification will wa#d create the need to build new capabilities andenhance others as we work on problems in new application domains, Developingcapabilities and technologies and then applying them in these new areas will watkiextend DOES impact in areas of national and international importance, Hence,diversification of PNNL’s ~ ‘ Energy Business is critical to enhancing DOE’sasset at PNNL ~ as well as enabling DOE to have an even greater impactin its mission areas.

For FY98, two client sets have been selected to focus on growth investments on that willresult in the desired diversification and capability building; those associated with buildingthe NA_lT Initiative, and lntemational/industrial clients. These client seta were selectedbecause they offer opportunities for PNNL to work in areas that it has not historicallyworked in and hence, requires the building of new capabilities and the ability to applythem. ~

●The NATT Initiative client set ~ offers opportunities to develop and deploycapabilities such as:

. Fundamental applications in materials and manufacturing simulation using 128 node ahigh performance computer.?

. Quantum mechanics software codes linked to engineering mechanics codes (e.g. finiteelement) to auto CAD/CAM codes for a fully integrated approach to modeling andsimulation.?

. Advanced manufacturing processing technologies.,

. Aw4 a Advanced automation and measurement systems for manufacturing processcontrol environments.

The lntemational/industrial client set offers opportunities to develop and deploy capabilities suchas:

. Expanding base capability in energy management and infrastructure analysis soflwaretools (FEDS, MekChek, etc).

. Software tools and capabilities for building diagnostics.

. Transmission system diagnostics capabilities and software tools that underpin Operationand Maintenance capabilities.

. Establishment of relationships with U.S. technology firms and foreign technology centersthat enable PNNL to better serve DOES international policy initiatives such as theClimate Change Action Plan, the INSP program, the USAID/DOE Energy EficiencyCenters, etc.

e Baseline Information: The following represents the set of clients the comprised the funding baseand opportunity set for our Science and Technology Based Energy Business in FY98 and FY97,

32 Bmdle IV 1998Pafomcc EvaluauonAwnmt

KJFiRL.97 .74Revision1,616198

as well as the corresponding level of sales for each. Sales are defined as the dollar value of asigned contract, or dollars received by PNNL from Government clients.

DOE-EE FY 96 FY 97BTS 12,816 10,450OTT 2.095 5.035Other NAT’P o 2;911

OIT 3,441 1,582OUT 1,040 1,086Assistant 139 4,045

Total OOE-EESecretaV Level

19,531 25.089DOE-PO “771 ’434OOE-FE 1,677 1,550Other DOE 1,739 2,339DoD 2,778 3,198OFA 309 847industrial/lntemational 1,155 2,709StatelLocal Government 10 91Private Energy 544 1,199Total Enemy Division: 28,514 37/$26

“ OtherNAIT includesNAIT fundingfromDOE-LTR,DOE.BES,and Oalpld

Performance Expectation Related /WSUMDtiOnS: Sales will remain as least level in all but thetarget client sets: NATT (DOE-EE OIT, Other NAIT as defined above), andIndustrial/International. ~

Performance Evaluation: Performance will be measuredPNNL’s

~ by~ ability to maintain current business base and meet its growth in salea

aspirations in the two targeted ctient seta - NAl_7 a+a@@QX EC OTT , and (b)Industrial/International. Performance expectations are as follows:

● Marginal -zero growth in either NATT or with international/lnduatrial clients. Good - increase of $1 .5M in NAIT and $1.OM in lnduatrial/international. Excellent - increase in sales of $2.5M in NAIT and $1 .5M in Industrial/International. Outstanding - increase in sales of $3.OM in NAl_T and $2.OM in Industrial/International

Performance Ratinw An adjective rating shall be assigned as indicated above except that a Adrop in total evafaga sales ~ in other areas (excluding NATT andlntemational/industrial) exceeding 3% will result in performance being downgraded one ratingcategoty. ~ .,

3.3 Obiective - Develop and expand fundamental research programs coupled to the mission ofDOE and other mission oriented agencies. (15%)

Performance indicators

33 Baadk FY 1$98Pctf.nname EvaluationAsremmt

LQEJ’RL.97.74Revision1, U6(98

3.3.1 Number of staff obtaining PI status on Pi-initiated fundamental research grants

Description: Strong fundamental research programs are critical to the Laboratory’s abilityto contribute to DOES missions in science and to the education/training of futurescientists. Our fundamental research programs also build much of the new researchcapability that is subsequently used in the more applied technology developmentprograms of DOE. At the heart of our fundamental research programs is the process ofPrinciple Investigator initiated basic research grants. DOE and other agencies that fundbasic research typically fund people (i.e. the name recognition of established experts in aparticular field) and use extensive peer reviews in their funding decision process. It isimportant for the Laboratory to maintain and expand the number of scientists at theLaboratory who have Pi-initiated research grants.

We currently have approximately 100 projects considered to be Pi-initiated grants. Thegoal is to increase this number in the coming year in order to broaden and diversify ourfundamental research programs. Increasing the number of Pi’s will not only 1) increasethe quality and quantity of research, but also 2) increase the number of individuals whoare actively interacting with the greater scientific community to bring more collaborativeresearch to bear on DOE programs.

For FY 1998, the Contractor will increase the numbar of Principle Investigators on Pl-initiated projects

3.3.2 Agencies providing fundamental research funds

Description: Funding for fundamental research at the Laborato~ is primarily from DOE’sOffice of Energy Research. To maintain the quality and impact of the research it isnecessaty to expand the funding base for fundamental research to other agencies. Workfunded by other agencies provides for the development of new research capability that isapplied to DOE programs in the future.

With project flat budgets for virtually federal agencies this expansion of funding base willrequire a fairly long term perspective and will likely involve forming partnerships(particularly for agencies like NSF and NIH who primarily fund academia) with academiaand other federal laboratories. The goal is to maintain the FY 1997 base from OER andothers while increasing the funding from non-OER sources.

Baseline information. No baseline data is available.

Performance Expectations Related to Assumptions: In FY 1998 the target is to establishthree new funded programs with funding to the Laboratow from one of the major non-OER agencies e.g. NSF,NIH, DOD.

3.4 Obiective - Davelop research programs within the Wiley Laboratory that effectively use itsresources supporthg both fundamental and applied research needs. (15Yo)


3.4.1 Wiley Laboratory research funding FY 1999 against the projected research curve

o Description: This indicator measures the commitment of research funding gathered by theend of FY 1998 to perform research during FY1999 in the Environmental Molecular Science

34 Bmc)lc FY 1$98Perf.mnara EvaluationAmen,

KXJRL-97.74Revision1, 616198

Laborato~ (EMSL) facility. A projected research funding curve is used as the baseline fromwhich the performance measure is made (sea Table 3A, below). The figure shows thebudget year in which funds are planned to be expended. Funds required to operate EMSLas a-user facility and LDRD funded research are excluded from this measure

EMSL Funding Profile

%4 1

FY95 FY96 N97 FY98 FY99 FYOOFYOI FY02

Table 3A

Baseline Information The rlmding profile is developed as a pathway for reaching fulloperational capacity of the EMSL-by FY 2001 (Tabie 3A). FuII operational capa~ty for theEMSL is defined as the amount of programmatic finding required to support research byEMSL scientific staff and is estimated at $21,240K. ThLslevel of research is based on theassumption that the proportion of scientific researchers within the EMSL (support andmanagement staff) is appropriate to meet the needs of operating a national scientific userfacility. This is evaluated as being approximately equal to the current (FY 1997) level ofsupport (124 S&E and 46 other staff). A common estimator of the distribution of time spentconducting research, supporting users, and performing administrative activities is used foreach staff member (e.g. 47% time on programmatic research, 10% time on LDRD, ss~o time

to support users on the operations budget, 8% time on administrative overheads). Thissupport requires approximately $28-30M to operate the facility to support users. A reducedoperating funding level may reduce overall capacity for research in the EMSL. No netgrowth in the number of scientists within the EMSL is assumad in this baseline information.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: The funding profile and the performanceexpectation has been developed based on some assumptions about the uncertainty of themarket for fundamental and directed basic research. It is assumed that the majority ofprogrammatic funding will come from new unsolicited programs in DOE/ER or DOE/EM, andfrom programs elsewhere in DOE, or in other federal agencies, site mntractors, and privateindustry. New monay for research in EMSL related mission areas have not beenconsistently available from year to year. For example, there were several opportunities inFY 1996 and FY 1997 to compete for new research funding, from the EnvironmentalManagement Science Program (DOE/EM), the Environmental Technology Partnerships(DOE/ER), and the Natural and Accelerated Bioremediation Program (DOE/ER). However,currently there is no indication that there will be an opportunity from the EnvironmentalManagement Science Program or the Environmental Technology Partnerships for FY 1999new starts.

Performance Rating:

35

Ratings will be based on total sales as of the end of FY 1998.

Bmell,FY1998Pofmn!xm EvaiuatiotIA@wmr,t

rxxmL.97.74Revision1. 6J6198

3.5 Obiective - Diversify the environmental science and technology base and increase thescientific and technical contributions to clients. (1O%)

The environmental science and technology (S&T) business is defined by R&D projectswith the principle objective being to gain new scientific insights and “models which helpthe Department understand and develop solutions to complex environmental problems orwhere the principle objective is to conduct development, demonstration and deploymentof new technologies and approaches. This business area is defined by the five majorenvironmental product lines identified below that crosscut the Laboratory’s organizationalunits and includes some of the projects in the fundamental science product line that mightcrosscut multiple DOE mission areas but have a clear environmental mission focus, Forexample, DOE-OHER funded projects under the DOE Environmental Sciences Divisionwould be included, as would DOE EMSP projects. It is unlikely that the Department’sBasic Energy Science’s projects or those funded by the National Science Foundationwould be included in this definition. The five major environmental product lines that fitclearly within this definition, in addition to the selected elements of the fundamentalscience product line, are: 1) Process Technology Development& Application, 2)Environmental Remediation Systems, 3) Environmental Technology Assessment&Integration, 4) Resource& Ecosystems Management, and 5) Environment, Safety&Health Systems.

Performance Indicator

3.5.1 Number of environmental S&T clients

Description: This indicator will measure progress towards developing new environmentalscience and technology clients. This meaaure reflects Laboratory’s efforts to diversify itsbusiness base of clients and deliver the capabilities that were established by DOE-EM forsolving today’s environmental problems in pollution prevention, waste management, andenvironmental restoration to multiple other government agencies and industrialcustomers, while at the same time laying the technical foundation for solving tomorrow’senvironmental problems and developing the inherently clean energy and industrialprocesses of the future. Diversification of clients will allow the federal government tobetter leverage its investments, help ensure multiple pay back from the expenditure ofpublic funds, and reduce the cost to DOE of maintaining the scientific and engineeringcapability that has historically been needed to solva newly identified and complexproblems which surface when cleanup activities progress. Numbers of projects is aleading indicator of developing sustainable relationships with a larger group of newclients.

Baseline Information: This is a new performance indicator and as such, the baseline hasnot been well established and both the accounting systems and the environmentalproduct line definitions have been evolving over the paat two years. The FY 1998product lines are more claarly defined to eliminate historical overlap which will allow us tobetter distinguish the environmental business from the other laboratory business.Historical information using the FY 1996 and 1997 product lines as well as historicalinformation regarding the number of OST funded projects relative to the number of non-OST funded projects will be used to establish the growth expectations.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: Federal spending on innovative scienceand technology will remain flat or continue to decline. The budget for DOE-EM50 Officeof Science and Technology (OST) also appears highly likely to continue to decline.However, DOE-RL wants the Laboratoy to maintain its capabilities for solving complex

36 BauclleFY 1$98Perfomce EvaluationA,qmmnt

r?mlRJ..97.74Revision1,W198

environmental problems so that it can continue to support DOES current cleanup missionand the nations environmental problems of the future.

Performance Evaluation: Thenumber ofproject sales tonon-OST clients will beusedtomeasure performance against this indicator. Itisour intent toevaluate the growthinnumber of new environmental related project sales to all funding sources other thanDOE-OST including for example, the DOE-EM30/40/60 technology demonstration anddeployment type work, DOE-EES O~ce of Industrial Technology, DOE-OHER, DOD,EPA, BPAandindustrial 1831 customers. Theenvironmental product lines whichcrosscut Laboratory organizational units will provide the basis for capturing the neededdata. Accounting andother suppoti systems that assign projects toproduct lines havebeen developed over the past several years in order to allow this type of tracking DOE-RLwillbe provided withquaRerly updates onthepefiormance against tMsintictor. Inthis indicator, clients are counted at the points of sale, and sales of different jobs to thesame customer can recounted asapplicabie totheindi~tor. Forexample, sales to twoNavy bases or Commands would count as two clients, not as a single client in the Navy.

Performance under this indicator is modified (see following figure and contingency table)byaninput based on business growth. This modification assures theeffectiveness of thediversification metric by incentivizing significance in the size of the sales, not just thenumber of sales.


Figures 3A, 3B, 3C, 3D, and 3E document the associated agreements on performanceexpectations intheform ofcontingency functions. Theoverall performance rating forthisoutcome will be determined by summing the effectiveness scores for all Objectives as depicted inTable 3,1, below, normalizing the scores using Table 3.2 and comparing the normalized sum tothe rating scale in Table 3.3.

37 BmlelleW 1998PerformanceEvaluationAwmnent

KmmL.97.74Rerision 1.6,6,98

, Cmb,t,mc.n

Figure 3A, Scientific & Technical Contributions Objective 3.1, ContingencyDiagram

; //,/,/

“ , ,

.,0

.15

.20

.25

a

.354 2/“’”

.45

.50

.%

a

*5.70

.75

.80

-85

-93.%

r PMVmra-c.uciEMita!al

311: 3,1,2

3$ Bmdk FY 1998Perfonna!w EvaluationA-ret

DOLTU.-97.74Revwo. 1, 616198

Figure 3B, Scientific& Technical Contributions Objective 3.2, Contingency Oiagram

w95

Sa85

80/

7570

85

e+55

%4540

3524

25u! 20e 150 10

“5

\/

0?0, .2/2

.5m .<0

@ .!5u .20z .25

w .30> .35

- .40 2+ .45

v .54u .55

..64

.+5w .70

.75

.80

.85

.$+

.95.,COf

SCALE1 DOE-ESOTT ,1 1 [111111111111111111 111111 [[1, ,0 ,62 Incilsm,l ,.?, .1

20 25 3, I 11111111O* ,0 ,, ,0

39 Bwldle FY 1998PerfcmnameEvaluationAwcm”t

DQEJP.L97.74Rem,,.. i, cW9S

1

2

Figure 3C, Scientific& Technical Contributions Objective 3.3, Contingency Oiagram

fco

:

?

056975

UEn55

;403530

:

:;5

.:.10.<5 ...

~.-20.25 2.--w-%

2..50 1.s5

2-70.75

:.S+J

n

Pelmma.eCure lnd,celor

.;: 3.3.1

.405 2 3.3.2

.,40

.,<5

.120

.<25

.13U

.135

.,40

.145

.,50

.455

.3w

40

1

DOEJIW97 .74Rem,.. 1, 6J6198

Figure 3D, Scientific & Technical Contributions Objective 3.4, Contingency Diagram

1(W

95 /’90

85

80 /

-5

-?0

-15

.20

-25

-30

-25

-40 /45

,/[email protected]

-70 /

-sol /-751 /

-s5

-s0

-95 /-ml 1

m.1051

Objective 3.4: Measure Wiley Laboratory research funding for FY 1999 against the projectedresearch curve

SCALE

Reseach Funding 442 QM] I I 4130!4 I I I *14 OM I *4.WM I I eie w I I I ,$,7 oil

41

DOEJRL.97.74Revision1..$698

Figure 3E, Scientific& Technical Contributions Objective 3.5

Effectiveness Matrix

.8

.f 8

.28

.?8

%

i“i .%2 -i5’.:ii: ii -44 -37 .30 .28 -22 .i8 .14 .10 -9 .8 .7 .6 -5 .4 .3 .2 -4 i.

.5 -4.3.2-*012 345678S10 1112 <314 ~5?6474$ 1920

42

Custonwr Divofsw % Chan#e

Bmdk W 1998Perf.omce EvaluationAwmnt

LXJVSL.97-74Revision1.6/6/98

ELEMENT Performance Effectiveness Value Weight WeightedLevel Score Points Points

3. Scientific & Technical Contributions3.1 Develop and apply innovative armacontrol, nonproliferation, andintelligence technologies that enhancenational security and reduce the dangerfrom weapons of maaa destruction.3.1.1 Number of relevent contributions tonational security problems3. 1.2e EMSL contributions to nationalsecurity problem solutions - Applied.3.1 .2b EMSL contributions to nationalsecurity problem solutions - Fundamental.

Obj 3.1 30%Total

3.2 Diversify the Laboratory science andtechnology (S&T) Energy Business.3.2.1 Diversification of the S&T basedenergy business

Obj 3.2 30%Total

3.3 Develop and expand fundamentalresearch programs coupled to themission of DOE and other missionoriented Laboratories.3.3.1 Numbar of staff obtaining PrincipleInvestigator-Initiated fundamental researchgrants.3.3.2 Number of agencies providingfundamental research funds

Obj 3.3 15%Total

3.4 Develop research programs withinthe Wiley Laboratory that effectively useits resources supporting bothhndamental and applied rasearchneeds.3.4.1 Wiley Labresearch funding FY 1999

Obj 3.4 15%Total

3.5 Diversify the environmental scienceand technology busineaa base andIncrease the scientific and technical~ontributions to clients.3.5.1 Number ofenvironmental S&Tclients

Obj 3.5 1o%Total

?-.-,1 I I 1 , “La, I I

Table 3.1 -Scientific &Technical Contributions Critical Outcome Petiomance*RatingDevelopment

@

e

043 Batldle FY 1998PerfonmnceEvaluationA&mcmnt

mm-97-74Rew!on 1,61U98

Obj. 3.1 Obj. 3.2 Obj. 3.3 Obj. 3.4 Obj. 3.5

National Develop & Fundamental Environmental

Security Deploy Energy Research Wiley Lab Science &

Technologies Technolc.giea Funding TechnologyRathg

ProgramsClients

180 170 175 100 100171

5.0162 166 95 98

1624.9

153 156 90 96153

4.8145 149 85 94

1444.7

136 140 80 92135

4.6128 131 75 90 4.5

126 119 123 70 86117

4.4111 114 65 82

1084.3

102 105 60 78 4.299 94 96 55 7490

4.185 88 50 70 4.0

81 77 79 45 6672

3.968 70 40 62

633.8

60 61 35 5854

3.751 53 30 54

453.6

43 44 25 5036

3.534 35 20 45

273.4

26 26 15, 40 3.316 ?7 18 109

35 3.29 9 5

030 3.1

0 0 0 25-2

3.0-7 -4 -5

-420 2.9

-14 -6 -lo 15 2.8-6 -21 -11 -15-8

10 2.7-28 -15 -20 5

-102.6

-35 -19 -25 0-12

2.5-42 -23 -30 -5

-142.4

-49 -26 -35 -10-16

2.3-56 -30 -40 -15 2.2

-16 -63 -34 -45 -20-20

2.1-70 -36 -50 -25 2.0

-22 -77 -41 -55 -30-24

1.9-84 -45 -60 -35 1.8

-26 -91 -49 -65 -40-28

1.7-98 -53 -70 -45

-309.6

-105 -56 -75 -50-32

1.5-112 -60 -80 -60 1.4

-34 -119 -64 -85 -70 1.3-36 -126 -68 -90 -80 1.2-38 -133 -71 -95 -90 1.1-40 -140 -75 -1oo -1oo 1.0

Table 3.2- Scientific & Technical Contributions Critical Outcome Score NormalizationTable

44 Bmelle W 1998Perfamnce EvaluationA8rwne.t

rxJF/RL-97.74Revision1,f.f6198

Total Score 5.0- 4.5 4.4- 3.5 3.4- 2.5 2,4- 1.5 1.4- 1.0Final Rating Outstanding Excellent Good Marginal I Unsatisfactory

Table 3.3- Scientific & Technical Contributions Critical Outcome Final Rating

45 Bmdk m’ 1998Perf.omcc EvaluationAgmrmt

IXXIRL.97.74Revision1,61.5198

4.0 OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE (20%)

Critical Outcome

Battelle will conduct all work and operate Laboratory facilities with distinction, fully supportive ofand integrated with the Laboratory’s science and technology mission and fully protective ofworkers, the public and the environment,

4.1 Objective -Establish full integration of ES&H activities intowork practices and managementatall Laboratory levels. (34%)


4.1.1 tinemanagers andstaffthroughout the Laborato~are clearly responsible for ES&Hperformance.

Measure: Theaveraged rating of ETD's', EHSDs, EDs, and F&Osassessment of theirES&H performance will be based on a statistically significant sample of the organization’sSeptember FY 1998 activities,

Description: Onamonthly basis each of thepreviously referenced lineorganizations willconduct astandardized self-evaluation onasample of their work activities. Theevaluations will be performed by trained subject matter experts using lines of inquiry andrating criteria (rating froml to5)consistent with the baseline evaluation petiormedin FY1997. Results from each self-evaluation will reanalyzed, androlled-up atthe organizationand Laboratoy level onamonthly basis, plotied, and tracked. Corrective actions andimprovement opportunities will be developed and implemented based on the monthlyresults, leading tocontinuous improvement inthemonthiy averaged rating. The FY-98performance measure results will be based on the sample taken in September 1998.

The performance-based, standardized evaluation approach will address whether work isperformed safely and whether functional areas and systems contribute to the successorfailure of thework. Theproject (oractivi&) evaluation will reconducted bythe affected lineorganizations (with the support of appropriate subject matter experts) to quantify knowledgeofrequirements, execution ofworkand accountability for ES& Hpetiormance. . The resultsof theevaluation will retranslated into aratingsceleofl to5. Theevaluation results wiilmeasure the degree to which work is performed safely based on, at a minimum, thefollowing criteria:

.●

.

.

.●

✎

✎

Defining the scope of the work activity properlyReviewing controls, processes, and procedures for safe operation before the workbeginsConducting the work according to the planned activitiesPeriodically reviewing the project or activity processes for detection and correction ofunsafe conditionsInvolving themselves in the safe conduct of workCommunicating roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, and authoritiesAssigning or ensuring properly trained staff competent to perform the workBalancing production and ES&H

Baseline Information: Apilotevaluation wascompleted in FY 1997. This evaluationvalidated the standardized approach and provides a baseline rating that was used to

46 Baud!, W 1998Pcrfonnaue Enluation ASrtcnwnt

DOFJRL97 .74RWIS1OII1,616198

support the year-end expected performance estimate. Results from the pilot evaluationprovided a baseline score of 2.7 for this Performance Indicator.

Performance Expectation-Related Assumptions: The evaluation results will be validated bythe Contractor Independent Oversight organization and DOE-RL STO at year-end.

4.1.2 ES&H roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and authorities are clearly establishedthroughout the Laborato~.

Measure: The averaged rating of ETDa’, EHSDS’, EDs’, and F&Os’ lES&H survey resuitswill be based on a statistically significant sample of the organization’s September FY 1998activities.

Description: On a monthly basis each of the previously referenced line organizations willrequireastandardized survey be completed by project staff on a sample of work activities.The same survey tool will be used to address criteria from 4.1.2 and 4.1.5. The survey waadeveloped to accurately and consistently capture information about the degrea to whichstaff understand their ES&H roles, rasponsibilities, acmuntabilities, and authorities.Results rlom each survay will be analyzad, and a rating assigned (rating from 1 to 5). Theindividual ratings will ba rolled-up at the organization and Laboratory level on a monthlybasis and plotted. Correchve actions and improvement opportunities will be devalopad andimplemented based on the monthly results leading to continuous improvement in theaveraged survey rating. The FY-98 performance measure results will be based on thesample taken in Septembar 1998.

This activity will measure understanding and knowladge. Thesa results will complementthe performance based evaluation results described in performance indicators 4.1.1 and4.1.6. This survey will ba conducted to solicit opinions and determine the level ofunderstanding of the integrated ES&H management system for randomly selected, projector activity participants (a.g., Project Manager). Tha results of the survey will measure thadegrae to which staff understand their ES&H roles, responsibilities, authorities andaccountabilities based on, at a minimum, the following criteria:

. Laboratory policies and procedures clearly inform the project manager of the rolesand responsibilities of line managers in reviewing and approving tha project SOWand overseeing potential ES&H hazards associated with the projact.

. Laboratory policies were sufficiently clear to help specify the chain of accountabilityand reporthg requirements for any emergent ES&H issue that might be encounteredduring the murse of this project.

. The appropriate levels of management assumed adequate responsibility andaccountability for work review and authorization throughout all stages of this project.

. The line managers and/or product line managers associated with this p3rojectregularly receivad project evaluation feedback that included an evaluation of ES&Hperformance.

. The management chain of accountability and reporting requirements for any possibleemergent ES&H issues that might be encountered during the project were clearlycommunicated to all members of the project team.

Bsttdle FY 1998PerfonnanmEvaluationAmment

COEJRL.97.74Rwisio. I,6J6198

. ES& Hrequirements, procedures andhazard controls adequately specified thesafetyroles and responsibilities of individual project members for both work activities andpossible hazard events.

. Relevant leasons learned were readily accessible when developing hazard controlstrategies.

. Hazard controls weresuficiently clear andeasy to implement.

. Hazard analysis expetise wasreadily accessible during theplanning and executionphases of this project.

Baseline information: Thesuwey instrument waspiloted in September, l997. This pilotvalidated the survey approach and provides a baseline rating that will be used to supporttheyear-end expected performance estimate. Survey criteria forperformance indicator4.1.2and 4,1.5will becomMned ononeform to facilitate data collection. Results from thepilot survey provided a baseline score of 4.0 for this Performance Indicator.

Performance Expectation-Related Assumptions: Thesurvey results will bevalidated bytheContractor Independent Oversight organization and DOE-RL STO at year-end.

4,1.3 Staff Competence andlevel ofknowledge throughout the Laborato~is commensurate withassigned responsibilities.

Measure: Themeasure ofstaff ES& Hcompetence will beacompositeof~Woparts, which when multiplied together provides an indication of the status of staff ES&Htraining. The first padmeasures theextent towhich regular full time staff have identifiedtheir current ES&H training requirements based on their job assignments using the StaffDevelopment and Training Planning Tool (SDTP), ~

Part 1 of measure - Staff Completion of SDTP

The measure of the percentage of staff who have updated their SDTP is:

0/0current = No. of staff with SDTP utldated since October 1, 1997Total No. of regular full time Rich land PNNL staff as of October 1, 1997

Notes on Part 1 measurement

. Includes regular full time staff located in Richland PNNL facilities who are currentlyemployed by PNNL AND were employed by PNNL on October 1, 1997.

. “SDTP updated” means that the staff member, their manager, and/or trainingcoordinator have developed/reviewed and approved the SDTP,

Part 2 of measure - Staff Completion of ES&H Trainina Requirements

The second part measures the extent to which staff have completed ES&H initial trainingrequirements

o48

‘A mmplete = No. of staff who have comoleted taraeted ES&H trainina requirementsNo. of staff with SDTP updated since October 1, 1997

aaltdk W 1998PerformanceEv,luamn Awment

EmlRL-97-74Revision1,616198

Notes on Part 2 measurement

● Target ES& Straining requirements" toalistoftargeted initial ES& Hcourses. (seefollowing table)

COmoOsite measure of staff competence

The multiplication of the two parts dascribed above results in the parentage of staff whohavecompleted allthetargeted ES&Htraining based onacument SDTP, Aesuchitindicates a confidence value for staff ES&H competence.

Composite =Partl xPart2=%

Other Notes

1. Theyear endvaluas for Plpartsl and2and thecomposite is based onthe values asthey exist in the PeopleSoft datebases on the last working day of the fiscal year, ascorrected for year-end errors due to remrdlng delays for completed training.

2. Staff Competence isexpected to remeasured quarterly. The FY-98performance wiilbe the measure taken during the last quarter.

Description:

The indicator of current ES&H training requirements is derived from

the PeopleSofl Training Information System databas~ can provide the data for Part1 as to dates when each Laboratory staff member at Hanford last updated their SDTP

Performance for this indicatorwill be measured quarterly ~

Part 2 of the performance measure ~_isalso derived from the PeopleSoff Training information System database, Thisperformance indicator will remeasured quarterly. Thetargeted ES& Hinitial trainingcourse list (below) is basedon ~

.~thefollowing categories of ES&H training requirements:

. Worker Safety and Health

. Radiological Controls● Environment and Waste Management

Performance measurements and indicators are based on the validity and currency of dataavailable from the PeopleSoft Training Information System database.

49

Performance Expectation-Related Assumptions: Thenewweb-based trainingquestionnaire (i.e., SDTP) is expected to come on-line during the first quarter of fiscal year1998. Full implementation anduseby stiff isexpected to recomplete bytheend of thefiscal year.

BaltelleFY 1998PetionnanceEvaluationAsmement

DOm.97 .74Rem,>.” 1.6J6J98

Since the SDTP tool is new to the Laboratory in fiscal year 1998, no baseline data isavailable. ~ However, information available as of ffem September,1997 indicates that about 3076 Laboratory staff have a completed a training questionnaireand that 1974 staff with current questionnaires are in compliance with required training.

~ Baseline information fromSeptember 1997 indicates that only approximately 84% of staff are current on thair“required training (this could be a result of poorly specified requirements, changing jobrequirements that have not been captured on the training questionnaire, or actualdelinquency in training). By instituting and using the new SDTP tool, PNNL will be betterable to ascertain the status of ES&H training at the Laboratory.

List of Targeted ES&H Courses for POI 4.1.3

Course Code Course Title853 Fire Extinguisher Awareness700 Lock and Tag - General Employee Orientation411 General Emergency Preparedness674 Hazardous Material Shipping Representative Training675 HazMat Training for Warehouse and Transportation Personnel676 HazMat Shipping Awareness Training671 Laboratory Standard Hazardous Communication i

I 816 I Manager’s ES&H Awarene

661 Hazardous Communication: Introduction662 Hazard Communication Solvents664 Hazard Communication: Asbestos681 Hearing Conservation (Noise Control)988 Hot Work Permit Training679 Hot Work Firewatch Trainirw500 Respiratory Protection Training: Supervisors

:ss: Radiological Control638 & 639 CritiGaiity Safety for Criticality Safety Representatives640 325 Bldg: Criticality Safety for Cognizant Line Managers641 325 Bldg: Criticality Safety for Isolated Facility Representatives646 & 649 325 Bldg: Classroom Training and Testing1014 Electrical Safety for Workers

Safety for Non-WorkersIfety Requirements (OSRS) - General Training

?5 Bldg: OSR/OSL Training973 I 325 Bldg: OSWOSL Condensed959 \ Independent Verification Techniques and Requirements716 I Respiratory Protection Training - Issuers and Wearers (Air Purif@g

634 I Boat Operat683 I Laser Sa685 & 686 ] Laboratory Hood S

I Respirators)720 I Respiratory Protection Training - Single-Use DusUMist Respirators

tor Safety Trainingafety

;afety and On-The-Job Training ChecklistI ~83, 687, and I Laboratory Hood Safety, Radiological Work in Fume Hoods and On-The-Job[ 686 I Training

50 Bandk FY 1998Pdomnce EvaluationASTWIWN

DCHU..97-74RevuIon !, 6/6/98

694 Confined Space Entry695 & 696 Emergency Safety Showers and Eyewash Stations697 General Compressed Gases Safety701 Fall Protection - General

Radiological Worker IIRadiological Worker IGeneral Employee Radiation Training (GERT)

14 Glovebox Operations Safety (Radiological)

i=

821819R17-,.813&81623 I Temporary - Radiological Containment972 I SOP: OSR-001 Radioactive Material Inventory Tracking Instruction -325

I Bldg.715 I Radiation Generating Device Operator/CustodianG77 I DOE-Owned Sealed Radioactive Source Custodian Training I

r Training

4.1.4 A proper balance of priorities between the science and technology mission and ES&Hperformance is achieved throughout the Laborato~.

Measures: A composite of Prep & Risk metrics averaged over the fourth quarter ofFY 1998.

Description: On a monthly basis the database logs of electronic Prep & Risk activity forContract 1830 projects will be queried to determine the following metrics:

.

.

.

.

.

.

Percentage of projects with NEPA documentation complete before Product LineManager approval (60% weight)Percentage of ES&H-related questions on Prep & Risk marked “yes” which also havean explanatory comment (20% weight)Percentage of questions on Prep & Risk that are answered (1O%weight)Percentage of Prep& Risk forms with electronic signatures (10% w&ight)

The values for each metric will be weighted as indicated and combined for thecomposite value.

Ttrese metrics will provide valuable information about early planning for ES&H.NEPA is mandato~, and should (as a rule) be completed before final managementapproval of a projectQuestions on the Prep & Risk marked “yes” with no explanatory comment indicate alack of effort in the performance or documentation of early planning

51 Batld]e W 1998PerfornunceEvaiuxio” ASTWIIeOt

DWIRL.97 .14Rev!,,.. 1, 6’6’98

● Questions on the Prep & Risk that are not answered at all could indicate a lack ofplanning or a lack of rigor in documentation

. Prep& Risk without electronic signature indicate a lack of acceptance of Lab levelprocesses by someone in the mandatory approval chain. It is important to thedevelopment of good processes and metrics that the electronic Prep & Risk be usedacross the Laboratory

Thus, these metrics will provide valuable insights into the early planning process. Themetrics will be weighted (at the percentages indicated) and combined into a compositepercentage that will be tracked. [t is expected that the composite percentage shouldincrease over time until it approaches unity. Until that time, analysis of the specific metricswill spur continuous improvement initiatives.

This indicator will measure the integration of Prep & Risk into early project planning, Thismeasure will be evaluated to identify whether an appropriate level of effort is being placedon early project planning. It is anticipated that the level of effort and implementation ofPrep & Risk as a early planning tool will correlate to the level of technical difficulty (andhazards) associated with the work being proposed. Tracking and evaluating these resultswill enable the Laboratory to make process improvements which will appropriately optimizethe use of Prep & Risk leading to a reduction in overall cycle time and enhance therobustness of the planning process.

Baseline Information: FY 1997 baseline data areas follows:

. 26% of electronically approved projects had NEPA documentation comPlete beforeProduct Line Manager approval,

. 50% of questions on Prep& Risk marked “yes” had an explanatory comment.

. 93% of questions on Prep & Risk were answered.

● 26% of Prep & Risk forms had electronic signatures.

Performance Expectation-Related Assumptions: None

4.1.5 ES&H standards and requirements are clearly identified.

Measure: The averaged rating of ETDs’, EHSDS’, EDs’, and F&Os’ ES&H survey resultswill be based on a statistically significant sample of the organization’s September FY 1998activities.

Description: On a monthly basis each of the previously referenced line organizations willrequire a standardized survey be completed by project staff on a sample of work activities,The same survey tool will be used to address criteria from 4,1.2 and 4.1.5. The survey wasdeveloped to accurately and consistently capture information about the degree to whichstaff understand their ES&H roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, and authorities.Results from each survey will be analyzed, and a composite rating assigned (rating from 1to 5). The individual ratings will be rolled-up at the organization and Laborato~ level on amonthly basis and plotted. Corrective actions and improvement opportunities will bedeveloped and implemented based on the monthly results leading to continuousimprovement in the averaged survey rating. The FY-98 performance measure results willbe based on the sample taken in September 1996.

This activity will measure understanding and knowledge. These results will complement

●the performance based evaluation results described in performance indicators 4.1.1 and4.1.6. This survey will be conducted to solicit the opinions and determine the level ofunderstanding of integrated ES&H of randomly selected, projector activity participants

52 Bwe]le FV 1998Perfomnce EvaluationAWmI

LX3EJSL.97.14Revision1,616198

(e.g., Project Manager).. The results of the survey will measure the degree to which staffunderstand ES&H stendards and requirements based on, at a minimum, the followingcriteria.

. Feadback was provided to relevant systems (SBMS, lES&H, Hazard Analysis, etc.)regarding their usefulness and adequacy.

. A process was in place for reviewing the ES&H performance of the project and forcapturing and disseminating Iassons learned.

● Thare were adequate avenues for input and faedback on how effectively and efhcianttyES&H hazard controls were working during the course of this project.

Baseline Information: The survey instrument was piloted in Septembar, 1997. This pilotvalidated the survey approach and provides a baseline rating that will be used to supportthe year-end expected performance estimate. Survey criteria for performance indicator4.1.2 and 4.1,5 will be combined on one form to facilitate data collection. Results from thepilot survey provided a baseline score of 3.6 for this Performance Indicator.

Performance Expectation-Related Assumptions: The survey results will be vatidatad by theContractor Independent Oversight organization and DOE-RL STO at year-end.

4.1.6 Work authorizations and controls are tailored to work hazards.

Measure: The averaged rating of ETDs’, EHSDS’, EDs’, and F&Os’ assessment of theirES&H performance will be based on a statistically significant sample of tha organization’sSeptembar FY 1998.

Description: On a monthly basis each of the previously referenced line organizations willconduct a standardized self-evaluation on a sample of their work activities. Theevaluations will be performed by trained subject matter experts using lines of inquiry andrating criteria (rating from 1 to 5) consistent with the basaline evaluation performad in FY1997, which will ensura consistent results. Results from each self-evaluation will beanalyzed, and rolled-up at the Laborato~ level on a monthly basis, plotted, and tracked.Corrective actions and improvement opportunities will be developed and implementedbased on the monthly results, leading to continuous improvement in the monthly averagedrating. The FY-96 performance measure results will be basad on the sample taken inSeptember 1996.

The performance-based, standardized evaluation approach will address whether work isperformed safely and whether functional areas and systems contribute to the successorfailure of the work. The project (or activity) evaluation will be conducted by the affected lineorganizations (with the support of appropriate subject matter experts) to quantifyawareness, execution of work and accountability for ES&H performance. The results of theevaluation will be translated into a rating scala of 1 to 5. The evaluation results willmeasure tha degree to which work is performed safely based on, at a minimum, thafollowing criteria:

Guiding Principle #6 “Controls are tailored...”...●

Evaluating the hazards of the work commensurate with the risksDesigning the administrative and engineering controls to mitigate the risks adequatelyUnderstanding the requirements and standards for the project or activityFunctional areas and management systems contributing to the overall successorfailure of the work. *

Bandit FY 1998PerformanceEvaluationAFrne”t

COFJRL-97-74Rtrimn 1,6<6(98

Guiding Principle #7 “Work is authorized.. ,“. Dealing with scope changes

● Obtaining appropriate authorizations before the work begins

Baseline Information: A pilot evaluation was completed in FY 1997. This evaluationvalidated the standardized approach and provides a baseline rating that was used tosupport the year-end expected performance estimate. Results from the pilot evaluationprovided a baseline score of 2.8 for this Performance Indicator.

Performance Expectation-Related Assumptions: Evaluation results will be validated by theContractor Independent Oversight organization and DOE-RL STO at year-end.

4.2 Obiective - Achieve operational excellence in worker safety and health, and environmentalprotection (33%)


4.2.1 Occupational Safety and Health (33%)

Description: This Performance Indicator is a composite of 5 Performance Sub-indicators,designed to provide an overall evaluation of the Laboratory’s Occupational Safety and HealthProgram relative to the expectations of DOE and Battelle. These sub-indicators and theirspecific levels (metrics) are developed jointly by DOE and the Contractor based on one ormore of the following criteria:

● critical review of Contractor performance and historical trends,. benchmarking against private sector and other DOE R&D Labs,. line management performance improvement goals, and. an overall goal of performance excellence.

4.2.1,1 Integrated Hazard Analysis

Description: This indicator measures progress toward development of an integratedhazard analysis process.

Measurement The Laboratory will establish and pilot an integrated radiological,chemical and biological hazard analysis process. The process will be documented andsubmitted to DOE for review and approval prior to implementation. Once approved byDOE, the Laboratory will apply the process and document the hazard analysis for onework activity in each of four (4) organizations (Divisions). This LaboratoV document-ation will be submitted to DOE.

Baseline information: Separate, non-integrated processes for radiological, chemical andbiological hazard analysis are currently established. However, the level of formality withrespect to documentation and application varies from high in the radiological arena, tolow in the biological arana.

Assumptions:

- Physical hazards (confined space, electrical, fall hazards, etc.) will not be addressed inthe process to be established in FY 1998. These additional hazards will be integratedinto the process in FY 1999 (or later) depending on the results of this pilot effort.

54 Baildk FY I$98 Pafomnce EvaluationAwancnt

aOEiRL-97 -74Revision1, 616{98

4.2.1.2 Days Away From Work Rate

Description: This sub-indicator provides a measure of the effectiveness of the @

Laboratory’s processes for managing occupational injury and/or illness cases. The daysaway from work rate is a direct measure of our success in returning people to worK afteran occupational injury or illness.

Measure: The total number of days away from work that result from an occupationalinjury or illness, times 200,000, divided by total hours worked.

Baseline information: FY 1995-1997 DAWR average was 19.97,

- Days away from work as the result of injuries and/or illnesses that are not work relatedare not included in this sub-indicator.

- If a staff member reports to work for any portion of a day, that day is not included in thedays away from work computation.

- Total hours worked is computed using standard OSHA definitions,

4.2.1.3 Employee Job Task Analysis

Description: The sub-indicator directly measures the extent to which the EJTA data-basefor Laboratory staff is being kept current to reflect internal transfers and external hiring.This sub-indicator indirectly measures the extent to which occupational medical servicesprovided by HEHF continue to be optimized through the Employee Job Task Analysis(EJTA) system. In FY97, completion and filing of EJTA forms, for each Hanford oemployees, was a top DOE priority. To this end, DOE directed the Laboratoy tocomplete EJTAs for all current staff. DOES guidance was to initially complete EJTAs inorder to help establish a baseline for a forthcoming Request for Proposal on occupationalmedical services. The Laboratory committed to complete EJTAs for 95% of existing staffby November 1, 1997—an ambitious goal per the Laboratory. Sub-indicator 4.2.1.3 willdriva the Laboratory to institutionalize, and continue using the EJTA process in FY98.This sub-indicator will measure the extent to which the Laboratory implements the EJTAprocess, and keeps it current into the future. The value of maintaining the use of EJTA isto tailor and optimize the routine occupational medical services from the providingcontractor, as opposed to the Laboratory’s requesting ganeric coverage for Laboratoyworkers,

Measure: The number of EJTAs for internal transfers and external hires that arecompleted within 30 days of the transferor hire-date, divided by the total number oftransfers and external hires, expressed as a percentage.

- The basis for computing the percentage of EJTAs completed within 30 days will be thenumber of open personnel requisitions filled between October 1, 1997 and S@amk—WAugust 31, 1998, as reported by the Laboratory Human Resources.

- “30 days” means 30 calendar days.

- An EJTA must be submitted to the occupational medical contractor to be counted ascompleted.

Bztelk W 1998Pcrfmnar,ccEvaluawn A-en,

LKIFJT&97-74R,+,.” 1. w6.98

●- Staff who are located off-site and minors are not included in the total.

4.2.1.4 Lost Workday Case Rate

Description: This indicator provides a measure of the Laborato~’s effectiveness inpreventing occupational accidents and illnesses.

Measurement The total number of cases involving a lost work day or days that resultfrom an occupational injury or illness, times 200,000, divided by total hours worked.

Baseline information: For the past two years, the Laboratory’s Lost Workday Case Ratehas been below the multi-purpose national lab average of 1.7 cases per 200,000 hoursworked (1990 through 1993 data). This reflects the dedication of management and staffto reducing the accidents and injuries that result in lost workday cases.

The LWDCR is computed using standard OSHA methodology.

4,2.1.5 Chemical Management System Inventory

Description: This sub-indicator provides a measure of the overall accuracy andcompleteness of the chemical inventory data contained in the Laboratory’s ChemicalManagement System. Prior to implementing the methodology, the Contractor willdocumant and submit the process to DOE for review and approval. This proposedmethodology is due to DOE no later than January 2, 1998.

Measure: The overall accuracy and completeness of the data in CMS will be assessedbased on a statistically significant sample of the chemical holdings for ETD, EHSD, EDand F&O.

Baseline information: No data available at this time,

Assumptions:

- Each division (ETD, ED, EHSD and F&O) will complete a self-assessment on theaccuracy and completeness of the data in the CMS by the end of FY 1998.

- The overall accuracy and completeness of the CMS data for each division will bedetermined using a methodology similar to the methodology currently in place forLaboratory property inventories. Factors to be evaluated include

. item can be located

. item is in the database● item is bar-coded. custodian’s name is correct. building location is correct. hazard category is correct. quantity is correct

These factors will be weighted, summed and evaluated in a manner similar to theweighting process currently used for Laboratory property inventories. The methodologyto be used will ba documented and approved by DOE-RL STO.

S6 Bat!dle FY 1998Perfornun- Evaluation,@rcemcnt

DOFJFW97.74Revision1, 616198

The performance rating for the performance indicator 4.2.1 will be determined bysumming the effectiveness scores for all sub-indicators from Figure 4B within Table 4.1,normalizing the scora using Table 4,9, That score is then transferred to Table 4.8,

4.2.2 Radiological Control (34%)

This Performance Indicator is a composite of 8 Performance Sub-indicators, designed toprovide an overall evaluation of the Laboratory’s Radiological Control Program relative tothe expectations of DOE and Battelle.

4.2.2.1 Unplanned Exposures:

Description: 1) Any single occupational exposure that exceeds an expectedexposure by 100 mrem, 2) a single unplanned exposure onsite to a minor, student,or member of the public that exceeds 50 mrem, and 3) unplanned exposures aboveACLS as etw! defined in the Hanford Site Radiological Control Manual.

Measurement Number of unplanned exposures as defined.

Baseline Information: There were no unplanned exposures reported inFY 1997 as of July 31,1997.

Assumptions:

- If there is a significant change in scope of radiological work which changes theassumptions used to develop the performance ranges, they can be renegotiated bythe parties, Any changea will be approved by DOE-RL and incorporated within thisdocument via the approved change control process.

4.2.2.2 Unplanned Depositions

Description: Occupational exposure events resulting in the uptake of radioactivematerial(s) with a committed effective dose equivalent of 100 mrem or more abovethe expacted dose as specified in DOE M 232.1-1, Group 4A,

Measurement Number of unplanned exposures as defined

Baseline Information: There were no unplanned depositions reported inFY 1997 as of July 31, 1997.

Assumptions:

- If there is a significant change in scope of radiological work which changes theassumptions used to develop the performance ranges, they can be renegotiated bythe parties. Any changes will be approved by DOE-RL and incorporated within thisdocument via the approved change control process.

4.2.2.3 Uncontrolled Release

Description: Uncontrolled/unwanted (i.e., non-legacy) release of liquid or solidradioactive material meeting the criteria specified in DOE M 232.1-1, Group 2A.

Measurement Number of uncontrolled releaaes as defined.

Baseline information: There were no uncontrolled releases reported in

57

LXXIRL.97.74Revision1, 6,6198

FY 1997 as of July 31, 1997

Assumptions:


- An Uncontrolled release resulting in an Unusual Occurrence (UO) will count as 2events on this indicator.

4.2.2,4 Satisfactory Responses Field Evaluations of Training

Description: This sub-indicator is designed to determine ~

~ how effectively LaboratoryRadiological Worker instruction has been implemented and retained by RadiologicalWorkers in daily field work. The LaboratoV will use the existing questionnairedesigned to evaluate the field application of training. This measure will be thepercentage of satisfactory responses obtainad during in W-field evaluations of RadWorkers.

Measurement This will be calculated based on the total number of satisfactoryresponses divided by the total number of satisfactory and unsatisfactory responses,converted to a percentage. The sample size will be a minimum of ~~ 200 Radiological Workers.

4.2.2.5 Dose Index

Description: This indicator provides a direct measurement of the accuracy ofestimating dose for activities during radiological work planning process. If we grow toa high level of certainty where our doses are coming from, then we can be moreeffective at reducing unnecessary exposure.

Measurement The ratio of ’the sum of actual doses received as recorded in ACESdivided by the sum of all collective dose estimates required byRCP-3.I .01, Exhibit 1.

Baseline Information: A sampling of 10 RWPS with significant exposure during FY1997 was taken. This sampling indicated a “Dose Index” of 1.15 for the sample.Most of the samplas included activities in the 324 Building which has beentransferred to another contractor. The 324 Building’s estimates included conciseactivities with a well documented exposure history.


- This indicator will include only those activities requiring entry into Radiation Areas,High Radiation Areas and Very High Radiation Areas.

58 Ba7dk W 1998Perfomcc Evduahon.@mrnent

MXJRL.97.74Revision1, 6/6/98

- This indicator will be tracked for those activities with an estimated dose’for anindividual greater than 100 mrem or an estimated dose greater than 500 mremcollective for a group.

- Supplemental dosimetry will be used to track the dose for this indicator.

4.2.2,6 Unplanned Spills and Airborne Contamination%

Description: This would include events such as: 1) Unplanned airbornecontamination above 10Y. of a DAC outside a posted ARA, 2) spills of contaminationin radiological work areas requiring increased personnel protective equipment abovewhat was required for personnel to perform work in the area before the spill, and 3)spread of removable contamination (above HSRCM Table 2-2 levels) outside postedCAS, HCAS, and RBAs.

Measurement Number of unplanned spills and airborne contamination% events asdefined.

Baseline Information: There were no unplanned spills reported in FY 1997 as of July31, 1997.

Assumptions:

If there is a significant change in scope of radiological work which changes theassumptions used to davelop the performance ranges, they can be renegotiated bythe parties. Any changes will be approved by DOE-RL and incorporated within thisdocument via the approved change control process.

An Unplanned Spill resulting in an Unusual Occurrence (UO) will count as 2 eventson this indicator,

4.2.2.7 Loss of Radioactive Sources

Description: Loss of accountability of a sealed or unsealed radioactive source that isreportable as per DOE M 232.1-1, Group 1.D.

Measurement Number of losses of sealed sources as defined,

Baseline Information: There were two loss of sealed sources eventa reported in FY1997 as of July 31, 1997.

Assumptions:

- If there is a significant change in scope of radiological work which changes theassumptions used to develop the performance ranges, they can be renegotiated theparties. Any changes will be approved by DOE-RL and incorporated within thisdocument via the approved change control process.

- The loss of a source that emits greater than 100 mrem/h at 30 cm is equivalent to 4events in this catego!y.

- The loss of a source that is exempted from invento~ and source integrity tests aslisted in Exhibit 1, RCP4.3.03 of PNNL-MA-26 will not count against this indicator.

4.2.2.8 Skin and Personal Clothing Contamination%

Smell, FY 1998Perfomce Evaluation.&rement

DOm-97-74Raw.. 1, 4w98

Description: Radiological contamination of a person’s skin or personal clothingabove 5000 dpm beta-gamma/l 00 cm2 or 500 dpm alphefl 00 cm2 as specified inDOE M 232.1-1, Group 4B.

Measurement: Number of skin and personal clothing contamination evants asdefined.

Baseline Information: There were 10 skin and personal clothing contaminationevents reported in FY 1997 as of July 31, 1997.


The performance rating for the performance indicator 4.2.2 will be determined by summingthe effectiveness scores for all sub-indicators from Figure 4C within Table 4.2, normalizingthe score using Table 4.9. That score is then transferred to Table 4.8.

4,2.3 Waste Management and Environmental Protection (33%)

Description: This Performance Indicator is a composite of 7 performance Sub-indicators,designed to provide an overall evaluation of the Laboratory’s Waste Management andEnvironmental Program relative to the expectations of DOE and Battelle. The sub-indicatorsfor the Laboratory’s Waste Management and Environmental Protection Program, aredesigned to work together as a set. Performance on individual sub-indicators can not seweas a discrete measure of the Program’s work. Rather the Program is composed as a seriesof interconnecting projecte/taaks, in which key projects/tasks within the network are in aseries. These sub-indicators are being maasured to optimize the overall performance of theentire interconnected Program elements. These sub-indicators and their specific levels(metrics) are developed jointly by DOE and the Contractor based in one or more of thefollowing criteria:

●

●

●

✎

●

60

critical review of Contractor performance and historical rends,benchmarking against private sector and other DOE R&D Labs,line management performance improvement goals, andan overall goal of performance excellence.

4.2.3,1 Environmental Compliance

Battelle will operate Laboratory facilities, operations, and activities in a mannerthat fully protects the environment and insures compliance with all applicableFederal, State and local regulations. A graded index will be utilized to measurethe Contractor’s performance in this area. A total index will be tabulatedthroughout the year. The following points will be assigned for the purposes ofthis index

External Audit Environmental Finding 3 pointsReceipt of Voluntary Compliance Letter 7 pointsReceipt of Notice of Violation 25 points

For measurement purposes the following definitions will be used:

Baud!. FY 19+8Pe+mnance Evduaho” Awcment

SWIRL.97.74Revision1, U6{98

. External Audit will be an audit/inspectionperformed by a governmentagency (State, Local or Federal)

. Environmental Pinding will be a documented (by formal receipt of letter atthe Laboratory) violation of specified environmental regulation (TSCA,RCRA, NEPA, Clean Air, Clean Water and associated rules and orders),

. Total Index Score will be cumulative for the fiscal year (FY) and will includeall letters received at the Laboratory during the fiscal year.

. Maximum Score for VCL or NOV will be 7 points and 25 points respectivelyfor each individual receipt. (Multiple citations within the letter will not effectthe maximum points associated for the letter.)

4,2.3.2 Pollution Prevention/Waste Minimization

It is the Department of Energy’s (DOES) intent to have its facilities andlaboratories minimize waste generation to the maximum extent that is costeffective. When waste is minimized through pollution prevention activities, itreduces long term waste handling and disposal costs for DOE. To this end, theContractor shall, in the performance of this contract, strive for life cycle costreductions resulting from proactive utilization and implementation of a pollutionprevention program through implementation of new initiatives that reduce waste.DOE provides no direct funding in this area.’ The anticipated FY 98 savings areexpected to derive from non-DOE funds. The sub-indicator will help prioritizedthe spending of the Laboratory’s overhead dollars to include implementation ofpollution prevention and waste minimization strategies.

Definitions:

“Pollution Prevention (P2),” as used in this indicator,” is the DOE definition whichincludes source reduction (reduction of waste at the source) and recycling (reuseand reclamation) activities that reduce the amount of waste generated, reducethe amount of waste disposed, or reduce the amount of resources (such as wateror energy) used.

“Waste reduction,” as used in this indicator, means those validated amounts of wastereduced through source reduction or recycling activities performed by theContractor. Waste reduction must be done by pollution prevention (as definedabove) and not through treatment or disposal in order to be valid for thisindicator.

“Life Cycle Cost Savings,” as used in this indicator, means the life-cycle reduction in thecost of waste handling and disposal as realized by the DOE over the lifetime ofthe waste. This cost savings value is reached by multiplying the waste reductionby the DOE avoidable waste management cost as calculated and provided byDOE EM-77. Consistent with standard EM-77 proposal and reporting practices,savings will be claimed when implementation of the pollution prevention initiativeis done and waste reduction starts. Also consistent with EM-77 practices, theamount of reduction claimed is the amount estimated to be reduced over theperiod of one year.

“Validation of Waste Reduction,” as used in this indicator, means the process of DOEpersonnel performing an independent verification of results.

61 BatlclleFY 1998Petfamce EvaluationAwmIt

DOEJ’SL.97.74Revision1,6J6198

e

Calculation of Waste Reduction: The first portion of calculating life cycle cost savings isto calculate the waste reduced from pollution prevention. The quantity of wastereduced from source reduction activities is determined by the best technicalestimate of the amount of waste that would have been generated from theactivity without P2. This will be done by comparing the new process to theprevious history of the waste generating activity, if possible, or comparing it to asimilar process at the Laboratory or DOE. The quantity of waste reduction fromrecycling activities is the amount of material recycled and/or reused that nolonger has to go to waste disposal. Projects are claimed when implementation iscomplete and waste reductions have started. An entire year of waate reductionwill be claimed. In cases where a project had one-time reductions, then the truereduction was used. In projects with on-going savings, then an estimate of a fullyear of waste reduction will be used, based on process knowledge. [n this way,a project implemented in September 1998 will get the same credit in thisperformance incentive as a project implemented in October 1997. This isconsistent with reporting requirement to DOE EM-77.

Calculation of Life Cycle Cost Savings: -Life Cycle Cost savings shall be determinedusing #e DOE life cycle costs. These costs are on a per unit waste basis andrepresent the life cycle cost of the waste for the DOE:

Waste Typa Cost perQuantity

Low-Level $1,600/m3Mixed Low-Level $11 ,000/m3Transuranic & Mixad TRU $48,000/m3Hazardous $321kgSanitary $1,700/metric ton

The life cycle costs savings will be calculated as follows:

Cost Savings = SUM (Waste Reduced per project x Unit Cost of Waste Type)

(a) Reporting: Quarterly, a letter calculating the life cycle cost savings will be completedbased on the successes achieved during the quarter and submitted to DOE.

(b) Validation of Waste Reduction: The DOE shall validate the actual waste reductionsrelated to this incentive to determine the extent of the net savings.

Maximum: Life cycle cost savings of greater than $200,000Expected: Life cycle cost savings of greater than $60,000Minimum: No life cycle cost savings

Baseline: The Laboratory has achieved a life cycle cost savings of $60,000 peryear, averaged over the past three (3) fiscal years. These values are based onpast reporta to DOE EM-77 and are consistent with the practice of claiming oneyear’s estimated waste reduction at the point when implementation is complete.

4.2.3.3 Seven-day Turnaround

62

This sub-indicator measures the Laboratory’s performance in the area of wasteturnaround. Develop and implement a plan by December 31, 1997 that ensurestimely turnaround of waste portfolios, summaries, and related papenvork. Atlerthis date, all waste portfolios, summaries, and papers will be targeted forturnaround in seven working days, beginning when WMH receives the papenvork

Ilattdle FY 1998Perfomnce Evdua.on Awanent

ECWFJ-97.74Revision1,6W98

until WMH signs off on the portfolios to indicate that the waste is ready to bestaged for disposal,

Performance will be measured by the percentage of portfolios and summariesthat exceed the seven-day turnaround time due to validated Contractor arrors.Va/idated is incorrect or missing information as defined by establishedacceptance criteria (written criteria of record for a minimum of two months) andconsistent with previous reviews and acceptances.

Maximum: Less than five percent of papenvork exceeds seven-day turnaround,Expected: Ten percent of paper.vork exceeds seven-day turnaroundMinimum: Greater than 15 percent of papenvork exceeds seven-day turnaround.

4.2.3.4 Correct Wastes in Drum

Measure the effectiveness of waste programs by the percentage of waste volumevalidly rejected. The goal of this indicator is to provide the waste generator(s)with an incentive to provide an excellent characterization and segregationprogram by ensuring that no wastes are incorrectly placed in disposal packages.

Maximum: Less than three percent of waste volume validly rejected.Expectad: Five percent of waste volume validly rejected.Mhimurn. Greater than ten percent of waste volume validly rejected.

Valid rejection is a rejection due to not meeting a specified portion of establishedacceptance criteria (written criteria of record for a minimum of two months).

4.2.3.5 Alternatives Disposal Paths

Evaluate low-cost non-DOE path alternatives (including requests for proposals)during FY 1998. Measures should be expressed in dollars per volume of a givenradioactive waste stream.

Maximum: Evaluate alternatives for 25 percent or more of volume for low-levelwaste (LLW)/mixed waste generated and prapare and submit exemptionrequests to DOE for all alternatives that have life-cycle costs lower than WMHoptions.Expected: Evaluate alternatives for 10 percent of volume for LLW/mixed wastegenerated and prepare and submit exemption requests to DOE for allalternatives that have life-cycle costs lower than WMH optionsMinimum: No waste streams are examined.

4.2.3.6 Environmental Compliance and Field Service Representativa Support toWaste Generators

“The Contractor will measure the effect on its Wasle Management systemattributable to the deployment of Environmental ComplianceRepresentatives/Field Service Representatives in support of the Laboratory’swaste generators. The measurement will be accomplished by grading andtracking the quality of waste identification data submitted on Chemical DisposalRecycle Requests. An index of unacceptable data will be developed andreported on a quarterly basis.”

Maximum: 95 percent or more of CDRR submittals accepted on first review.Expected: 80 percent or more if CDRR submittals accepted on first review.Minimum: Lass than 70 percent of CDRR submittals accepted on first raview,

63 Bmdk IT 1598PerformanceEvaluationAsRemnt

COWRL97.74Revwo” 1, 66J98

4.2.3,7 Waste Indexing

In order to provide maximum assurance of available resources for managementand disposal of wastes generated at the LaboratoV, it is very important that thecontractor be able to appropriately estimate quantities, types and forms of wastesthat will be generated by its projects and associated activities. The intent of thisindicator is to measure the effectiveness and accuracy of the waste projectionmodeling being developed at the Laboratory.

Battelle will design, develop, and implement a waste forecasting methodology topredict waste generation rates at the individual project level. The Laboratory’swaste forecasting methodology, will be documented and provided to DOE forreview and approval. The Contractor will also provide for DOE approval: a listof the projects the Laboratory proposes to examine by which DOE can judgetheir performance the rationale for selecting a given project and the reason whythe selected projects as a whole adequately represent the spectrum ofLaboratory-generating facilities, waste types, waste generators, waste productionduration’s, and waste generating processes. This system will be ready for pilottesting on, or before, March 30, 1998. The methodology will be piloted on across section of projects and activities that ganerate various waste streams at theLaboratory, The pilot group of projects/activities will contain a minimum of 25projects/activities up to a maximum of 50 projects/activities. The waste volumepredicted to be generated by these projects/acfivifies from March 30, 1998through September 30, 1998 will be documented to DOE by April 30, 1998. Amonthly reporting on actual waste generation for each of the selectedprojects/activities will be providad through the end of FY 1998. The monthlyreport will provide individual, as well as overall, project indexing(estimated/actual) as well as any specified changes to estimated waste volumesthat may arise through directed scope changes.

Maximum: Overall index (estimated/actual) for selected projects is within> 50percentExpected: Overall index (estimated/actual) for selected projects is within~100percentMinimum: Overall index (estimated/actual) for selected projects is within ~ 200percent

The maximum measurement of ~ 50% is calculated over a cumulative six (6)month timeframe, at the end of the fiscal year. The sub-indicator allows theContractor to use the first six (6) month of the fiscal year to implement and testthe waste index system before submitting the measurement for the sub-indicator’s performance score.

In the event that the Laboratory were to underestimate the waste generationfigures, DOE will work to prevent waste form stockpiling, by examining theidentity of projects at fault, the exact locations of waste accumulation areas,monthly waste projections, and actual monthly waste quantifies.

Background: The Laborato~ currently generates approximately 50,000Kilograms of hazardous waste per year. At any given time, the Laborato~ hassome 2,000 active projects which may be generating hazardous waste.

64 Batelle W 1998Perfomce EvaluationASKCIT@It

D0EJRL97 -74Rem,,.” 1, W6’98

FY 1998 Environmental Composite Performance Indicators

Indicator

EC Index

P2 WasteMinimization

WM PaperworkTurn-around Time

Waste PackageContents

Disposal PathAlternatives

Valid CDRRSubmittals

Waste ProjectionIndex

Max Value

o

$200,000

<5%

<3%

>25%

>9570

t50%

MinValue

~75

o

>15%

>10%

o

<70%

t200%

Expected RankValua Mex

50 4

$60,000 5

1o% 6

5% 1

1o% 7

80% 3

~100% 2

RankMin

3

7

5

1

6

4

2

EffectMax

7.5

65

50

100

45

80

95

The performance rating for the performance indicator 4.2.3 will be determined bysumming the effectiveness scores for all sub-indicators from Figure 40E within Table4.3, normalizing tha score using Table 4.9. That score is then transferred to Table 4.8.

EffectMin

-95

-40

-55

-115

-45

-70

-100

65 Bawl), FY 1998Ptiomw EvaluationA~eatent

DW’RL.97.74Revmon 1, .w5198

4.3 Obiective - Achieve excellence in the management and use of Laboratory facility assets,(33%)

Performance bsdicatora

4.3.1 Physical asset acquisitions and modifications follow an integrated and systematic process(25%)

Description: This Performance Indicator is a composite of five Performance Sub-indicators,designed to provide an overall evaluation of the Laboratoy’s processes for acquiring andmodifying its facility assets relative to the expectations of DOE and Battelle. These Sub-indicators and their specific levels (metrics) are developed jointly by DOE and Battelle basedon one or more of the following criteria:

. critical review of Battelle performance and historical trends,

. benchmarking against private sector and other OOE R&D Laboratories,

. line management performance improvement goals, and● an overall goal of performance excellence.

The five sub indicators seek to encourage innovation that will lead to additional improvementof processes for project management, Improvement is identified by measuring projectplanning and execution cycle time and earned value, and over all responsiveness to DOEguidance and the needs of research for adequate space. The improvements sought arethose with significant impact, those that reflect “best in class”. This requires more thanworking internal to the Laboratory, it requires benchmarking to be part of the techniquesused. These elements were not design to function independently. The sub-indicators havebeen selected not only because they will drive laboratory improvement but also whencombined provide a set of controls that balances each other. Together the sub-indicatorsprovide a holistic approach to managing laboratory facility assets,

4.3.1.1 ~~ Percentage of the FY 1998 General Plant Project(GPP) funds provided by HQ.plus the remaining FY 1997 GPP cany over fundswhich are not rested by September’30, 1998.

Description: ~

~ ThisPerformancaIndicator (Pi) tracks the annual .perm”ntage of DOE GPP funds that are carriedover, defined as “servica not costed in the.Battelle financial system by the end ofthe fiscal year.” Tha goal iato carry over less then 30 percent of the total EMend ER GPP funds: The percentage will be calculated as the total DOE GPPfunds carried over divided by the’ FY 1998 EM and ER GPP.funds.

Baseline Information: ~

66 Baltdle W 1998Perfomce E“dualion Awnmu

EOEJSL97.74Reti$isn 1,616198

~ This measure willdemonstrate that GPP funds are managed to an accepte~e level. The, DOEEnergy Research. guidance, issued Februa~ 29, 1996, instructed the field officesto follow the GAO recommendation of 50 percent carry over for construction.This measure will promote proper planning and execution of projects and ensurethe timely use of fixrde.which are made available through cost savings. For FY1998, Battelle has reduced the carry over goal horn 60 percent to 30 percent.

Note

~ If a programmatic dsangeis directed by DOEwhich delaya or change: the scope.of a project;the proj~ may be removedfrom the PI ‘or re-baselined.Anychange, will require approval’by’DOE-RLandBattelle,and will be incorporated within this document via the changemx’drolprocess.

4.3.1.2 Composite Cost Performance Index (CPI)

Definition: CPI = budget cost of work performed divided by actual cost of workperformed.

Description: This indicator provides an indication of the overall cost efficiency,rlom the beginning of a project, with which work has been accomplished. Thisindicator is being added to compliment 4,3.1.1. Alone, 4.3.1.1 could promotespending funds regardless of the outcome. Adding the CPI value ensures a fulldollsr of value for each dollar spent. It also allows quick redirecting of underspent funds. Based on information from FY 1997 performance indicators andbenchmarking information we believe this is an area with opportunities forprocess improvement. Aa we experience improvements we expect CompositeCost Performance Index (CPI) for the FY 1997 and FY 1998 general plantprojects to be greater than 1. If the CPI reachesl ,04, consideration will be givento authorizing an additional capital project thereby increasing the effective use ofannual funding and minimizing carry over. This metric will be continued in outyears to with the goal being a CPI of 1 for all projects indicating good projectmanagement of planning and execution.

The 4.3.1.1 general plant projects are those used for this indicator.

Note: If outside programmatic influences negatively impact a project, the projectcan be removed from the PI or normalized to re-baaeline the PI upon agreementof both parties. Any changes will be approved by DOE-RL and Battelle, andincorporated within this document via the approvad change control process.

4.3.1.3 Cycle time for Engineering Request action plans.

Description: Self-assessment program results and benchmarking informationindicate improvements can be made to the Laboratory’s decision making processfor identification and correti!on of facility deficiencies. This ind!cator providesincentives to accomplish the rapid implementation of process improvements. TheFY 1998 goal is to have an average timeframe for.thSCore Team to reach

67 Bald, FY 1998P<rforn!anccEvaluationA_eDt

DOWRL.97 .74R<vi,ion 1, 6$6,98

agreement and closure ~ on an action plan for each W@+aaf@~ Service Request of 15 working days. The intent is to continue thismetric beyond FY 1998.

Definition: The date that the ~,.

Service Request has been reviewed by the Core Team as completed withenough information to evaluate the request, will be the start date. The date whenthe action plan, which will include that hazards have been mitigated and the riskreduced, is finalized and entered into, the R-Pm Service Request system will bethe ending date. The start and end datea will be documented in the audit trail oneach Service Request. The start date will be when the Building Manageradvances the document from “Request Approved” to “Facility Plan Preparation.”The end date will be when the Facility Planner advances the document from“Facili~ Plan Preparation” to eithec short?term planning; 10ng-terM.p[an~iP~ orEngineering for a baseline document. ~~ The PI will includeERe SeticeRequeata submitted afler September 30, 1997.

Metric The formula to develop the average timeframe will be:

Total number of days to reach agreement on all El?% ServiwRequests

Total number of El? Seti-ice~Requesta submitted into the ERPfe SewiceRequests system in FY 1998

There was much discussion on how to accurately measure this cycle time.During the year we will compare the established metric results with otheralternative methods including number of E% Setic8 Requesta completed within15-days/ total ~ “Servic@Requests.

4.3.1.4 Results of Benchmarking opportunities

Definition: This indicator looks at the results of benchmarking activities withcompanies who have similar processes. An opportunity is defined as animprovement that results in an actual FY 1999 budget submission reduction ofgreater than $100K for some combination of overhead budget elements.

4.3.1.5 The Percent of adequate space

Definition: ‘Percent of adequate space= adequate square footage divided by thetotal square footage.

Description: This indicator is a measurement of total adequate square footage,with the desired amount being 36% or greater. The classification of adequate isdetermined and documented using the process that was developed at theArgonne National Laboratory called the Argonne Model. This rating ismaintained in the Facility Information Management System (FIMS).

Baseline: The existing condition as of October 1, 1997 is:

~

68 Banelk FY 1998Pcriornun= EvaluationA-n,

LXWF.L97-74Revision1, 616198

Note: The type of space and totals do not include inactive buildings.

Note [f outside programmatic influences negatively impact adequate orinadequate spaces, the PI will need to be normalized to re-baseline. Anychanges will be approved by DOE-RL and Battelle, and incorporated within thisdocument via the approved change control process,

The performance rating for the performance indicator 4.3.1 will be determined by summingthe effectiveness scores for all sub-indicators from Figure 4E within Table 4.4, normalizingthe score using Table 4.9. That score is then transferred to Table 4.8.

4.3.2 Utilization of space is commensurate with science and technology mission needs (35%)

Description: This Performance Indicator is a composite of three Performance Sub-indicators, designed to provide an overall evaluation of the Laboratory’a processes forspace utilization relative to the needs of its science and technology mission andexpectations of DOE and Battelle. These Sub-indicators and their specific Iavels(metrics) are developed jointly by DOE and tha Battelle based on one or more of thefollowing criteria:

. critical review of Battelle performance and historical trends,

. benchmarking against private sector and other DOE R&D Laboratories,● line management performance improvement goals, and. an overall goal of performance excellence.

Seconday considerations are DOE needs for space utilization information on a site-wide orcomplex-wide basis.

4.3.2.1 Percent of available offices occupied

Purpose: Benchmarking data has not provided a straightforward approach todetermining appropriate allocation standards for optimizing the use of officespace. Current Laboratory office space allocations are comparable to otherprivate resaarch organizations. Yet the high cost of operating facilities and ofnew construction provides the motivation to increase utilization, It is expectedthat this indicator will lead to understanding:

. the actions that can be taken to reduce the amount existing vacant officespace (i.e. Office space used to store material and equipment instead ofactual staff), and

. if there are additional opportunities to consolidate into a smaller set ofbuildings

. The total usable office number (denominator) is defined as DOE and Battelleowned and leased ofice space that is part of the Space Chargeback System.

. The total usable occupied offices (numerator) is defined as DOE and Battelleowned and leased office space that is part of the Space Chargeback Systemwhich is occupied. Offices used as storage, libraries, and\or occupied by a0.5 FTE or less will be mnsidered vacant offices,

69 Batkl]e FY 1998Pafomuncc EvaluationA-eat

eOm-97-74Ra.i$k?n1, 6W98

The following will be excluded from the numerator and the denominator to ensurethe focus is on optimizing available office space

. Bathrooms, halls, copier rooms, lunchrooms, auditorium, LAN and telephoneclosets, conference rooms, lobby areas, and vestibules are all consideredcommon space and will not be contained in this Sub-PI.

. Offices leased out to other contractors have been removed.

. Offices within buildings that are isolated and/or not on-site (Richland) havebeen removed (Sequim, WDC, 622, Tacoma, Portland, and Seattle).

. Offices that are tied to construction, unavailable for use, and contained inbuildings slated for standby have been removed from this Sub-PI.

Metric The total usable occupied oftices (numerator) divided by the total usableoffice number (denominator).

4.3.2.2 The actual average office space square foot per person

Purpose: This sub-indicator was developed to compliment 4.3.2.1. A lowpercent of available offices can portray a high degree of office space usage. Butoptimization of the total space is also dependent on the average office squarefoot per person. Indicators 4.3.2.1 and 4.3.2.2 seek to:

. Establish an office per square foot guideline

. Ensure that Battelle is housed in the most economical and efficient mannerpossible given their mission needs and the configuration of the space theyoccupy.

. Understand if there are actions that could be taken to influence theLaboratory’s office space assignments in FY 1996.

Description Criteria:

. The total staff count (denominator) is defined as contractor and non-contractor employees working on site (Richland) in DOE and Battelle ownedand leased office space that are included in the Space Chargeback System.Battelle bargaining unit employees have been removed from this staff count,as the majority of them do not require an off!ce.

. The total usable office square foot (numerator) is defined as DOE andBattelle owned and leased office space that is part of the Space ChargebackSystem.

To focus on office space and be consistent with 4.3.2.1 the following is excludedfrom the numerator and the denominator:

. Bathrooms, halls, copier rooms, lunchrooms, auditorium, LAN and telephoneclosets, conference rooms, lobby areas, and vestibules are all consideredcommon space and will not be contained in thk sub-ind[cator.

. Staff and office space in buildings that are isolated and/or not within theHanford Site have been removed (Sequim, WDC, 622, Tacoma, Portland,and Seattle).

. Office space that is tied to construction, unavailable for use, and contained inbuildings slated for standby has been removed tlom this sub-indicator.

Metric The total usable office square foot (numerator) divided by the total staffcount (denominator) = “X”. Using the absolute value of [X-135] where “X” = the

70

LKWRL.97.74Revision1,616198

actual average off!ce space greater than the best level of 135 sq.fi,, and as (135-X)= where “X is less than 135.

The expected performance is the current Laboratory square feet per person.Current Laboratory building designs physically configures offices at an averageof 144 square foot per office. Survey and benchmarking data show Laboratoystaff dissatisfied with the amount of their office space, and other like R&Dcompanies housing R&D staff in offices comparable to the Laboratory’s in size.This adds to the difficulty of improving the average square foot per person.

4.3.2.3 Percent of available laboratories occupied

Purpose: Less is known about measuring laboratory utilization. This indicatorseeks to understand and develop a better model. In this first year this indicatorwill help:

● Understand if there are actions that could be taken to influence the amount ofvacant laboratory space including additional consolidation projects

● Establish baseline data.

Description Criteria

● The total usable number of laboratories (denominator) is defined as DOEand Battelle ownad end leased laboratory space that is part of the SpaceChargeback System.

. The total usable occupied laboratories (numerator) is defined as DOE andBattelle owned and leased laboratory space that is part of the SpacaChargeback System and is occupied. Laboratories containing R&D programsand equipment not in use will be considered vacant laboratories,

To focus on the usage of available vacant space following is excluded from boththe numerator and the denominator

. Laboratories leased oui to other contractors have been removed.● Laboratories within buildings that are isolated and/or not on-site (Richland)

have been removed (Sequim, WDC, 622, Tacoma, Portland, and Seattle).. Laboratories that are tied to construction, unavailable for use, and contained

in buildings slated for standby have been removed from this sub-indicator.

Metric: The total usable occupied laboratories (numerator) divided by the totalusable number of laboratories (denominator).

The performance rating for the performance indicator 4.3.2 will be determined by summingthe effectiveness scores for all sub-indicators from Figure 4F within Table 4.5, normalizingthe score using Table 4.9. That score is then transferred to Table 4.8.

4.3.3 Maintenance requirements and work performance ensures physical asset availability forplanned use (25%)

Description: This Performance Indicator is a composite of four Performance Sub-indicators,designed to provide an overall evaluation of Battelle’s processes for physical assetmaintenance relative to planned use needs of the Laboratory and the expectations of DOE.These sub-indicators and their specific levels (metrics) are developed jointly by Battelle andDOE based on one or more of the following criteria:

71 Bmdle FY 1998PerformanceEvaluationAgrccrnent

DOm-97.74Revm,on1, 416J98

● critical review of Battelle performance and historical trends,. benchmarking against private sector and other DOE R&D Laboratories,. line management performance improvement goals, and. an overall goal of performance excellence.

The four measures for FY 1998 include: Work Request Age, Work Request Backlog,Overtime Usage, and Efficiencies of Scheduling Critical Work. These have been selected notonly because they are industry-recognized tools of measurement, but also when combinedtogether they provide a set of controls that balance each other. For example, if age, backlog,and schedulas were measured without recognizing overtime consumption, overtime could besignificantly increased to reduce age, backlog or improve schedules. Together the four itemsprovide a holistic view of the effectiveness of maintenance.

4.3.3.1 Maintenance Work Request Age

Definitions: The age of work requests is the length of time (days) from the daythe work request is funded and entered into the planning and scheduling system,to the day it is completed and removed from the planning and scheduling system.A month is the pariod of time from the 26th of one month to the 25th of the nextmonth. The average completion time for a month is the sum of the days tocomplete all jobs closed during the month, divided by the number of jobscompleted that month. Jobs must be completed and closed by the 251bto beincluded in that month. The performance indicator will be a rolling average forthe last (12) months. All work requests for discrete tasks will be included in thisaverage.

Description: Implicit in achieving operational excellence is the expectation thatmaintenance work will be completed in a timely fashion without allowing abacklog to buildup or to utilize excessive overtime to minimize the time tocomplete or minimize the backlog.

Baseline information: This indicator has been tracked in FY 1996 and FY 1997,but in both cases the year-to-date average was calculated slightly differently. InFY 1996 an average for only jobs begun and completed in FY 1996 was used. InFY 1997 an average using jobs carrying over from FY 1996 and those started inFY 1997 was used. Both averages have some deficiencies, consequently, in mid-FY 1997 two additional averages were tracked to determine their effectiveness:(1) an accumulative average since FY 1996 and (2) a rolling 12-month average.It appears that the rolling 12-month average is responsive to changes without thecomplications of including or excluding certain data. Using a 12-month averagefor FY 1997, the maximum and minimum completion averages varied from 48 to62 days through the third quarter of FY 1997. Although FY 1997 is not complete,substantial work control changes have baen implemented and are contributing tothe performance improvement from FY 1996 to FY 1997, and to further thatimprovement in FY 1998 with the ranges suggested will demonstrate verypositive achievement.

4.3.3.2 Maintenance Work Request Backlog

Definitions: Discrete maintenance work requests for DOE facilities maintained bythe Laboratory, and those for the Battelle PSL, and RTL-520 buildings, that aregreater than 3 months old will be included in this measure. The age of workrequests will be the length of time (days) from the day the work request is fundedand entered into the planning and scheduling system to the day it is completed

72 Bmdle FY 1998PerformanceEvacuationAP!X.1

CCWRL.97 .74Revision1,616198

and removed from the planning and scheduling system. Three (3) months isequal.to 90 calendar days

e

Description: Tracking of the accumulated maintenance work requests that areincomplete provides a trend of facility status, readiness for occupant use, andresponsiveness of the maintenance function.

Baseline Information: This data has been tracked as a performance indicator fortwo years (in conjunction with work request age and manpower overtime).During the first eight months of FY 1997, the average has varied from 43 to 52percent. While in FY 1997 the age of work requests has improved the backloghas not materially changed. But, even with the lack of change in backlog therehas not been a recognized/measure~ degradation in facility status nor in thefacility responsiveness for occupant usq therefore, the currant rate of 43-52%would appear acceptable (good). To achieve an improvement to 35%wouldclearly be a substantial change.

4.3.3.3 Maintenance Ovartime Usage

Definitions: Existing payroll data will be used. This data includes the hours paid(as compared to the hours worked] it will continue to be used as it is the sourceof historical data against which performance (change) will be measured. TheD7F22 and D7F23 organization will be included in the calculations (D7F20 andD7F21 are administrative organizations, thus excluded), The accumulated yearto date average will be used for performance measurement,

Description: It is an expectation that sufficient manpower is available to meet theaverage craft work load. Further, it is recognized that some conditions cannot bemet through star%ngfor average workloads. For example, some weather relatedconditions or equipment failures cannot be plannad and may result in immediateneeds that cannot be met with normal staffing. However, most regular work canbe planned and scheduled such that an “average” manpower will satisfy themajority of customer needs, Use of overtime to compensate for poor planning isnot an acceptable alternative as overtime used on a regular basis increasesLaboratory cost, lowers efficiency, and increase the potential for negative ES&Hevents. Consequently, there is and will continue to be strong emphasis onplanning and scheduling work such that overtime becomes an exception ratherthan a routine practice,

Baseline Information: Historical average overtime work ratio (overtimehours/ragular hours) was 8% in FY 1995, 6.3% in FY 1996, and is averaging5.3% through June 1997 (expected to rise during the remainder of the fiscalyear). The continued emphasis on maintaining a very low overtime ratio appearsto hava bean partially responsible for not obtaining the improvements desired inthe work request age and backlog measurements. This coupled with benchmarkdata from an industrial facility maintenance organizations which controls itsovertime in the 6-8% range will be the basis to allow a slight increase in ovartimeduring FY 1998, while still reducing the performance ranges.

4.3.3.4 Efficiencies of Scheduling Critical Work

Definitions Monthly measurement of the percentage completion of the top 10%of jobs, based on the Building Managers priority listing for a given Core Team.

Description: Imbedded in the objective to achieve excellence in the managementand use of Laboratory facilities and assets is the requirement that the right work

73 BauelleW 1998Pcrfomce EvaluationA_ent

CCIEJRL.97.74Revision1, 6J6J98

is selected prioritized, planned and executed baaed on sound organizationalselection criteria.

Expected performance in FY 1998 is to achieve a consistent annual averagecompletion rate above 80%.

Measurement The measurements of Efficiencies of Scheduling Prioritized Workwill include:

Planned maintenance work listed on specific Core Team priority listing. For thefirst quarter of FY 1998, one Core Team will be selected from 300 Area and onafrom RCHN for data accumulation. During subsequent quarters, the evaluationwill rotate through the balance of Core Teams in the 300 and RCHN.

The top ten percent of the work requests will be selected based on the prioritylisting at the beginning of the month.

Evaluation and tabulation of completed work will be performed at the end of theselected month.

Data will be collected on a monthly basis and reportad quarterly, using theaccumulated year to date average for performance, baaed on data accumulatedand averaged for all Core Teams evaluated for that period. Fourth quarler datawill be averaged and reported based on year to date data from all Core Teams.Also included will be a narrative discussion of performance, to the Laboratorypoint of contact for Battelle’s performance evaluation.

Baseline Information: There is no historical data that can be used as a baselinefor this indicator. The nature of work within the Laboratory R&D activitiesrequires that some level of flexibility be acceptable to allow for the unexpectedneed of tha research staff for maintenance support. Many of the researchactivities are long term in nature and unexpected breakdowns must beanticipated and responded to, by building flexibility into the scheduling process.Based on these factors and interviews with staff, the expected averagecompletion of the top 10% of the monthly priority listing for a specific Core Teamcurrently is in the area of 60%. This is a measurement that does not currentlyexist. But, it is recognized that by adding this to measurement of work requestage, backlog, and overtime usage, another dimension is added improving theassurance that there is an accurate whole picture of performance improvement(or reduction).

The performance rating for the performance indicator 4.3.3 will be determined bysumming the effectiveness scores for all sub-indicators from Figure 4G within Table 4.8,normalizing the score using Table 4.9. That score is then transferred to Table 4.8.

4.3.4 Surplus physical assets are managed to reduce cost and risk (15%)

Description: This Performance Indicator is a composite of two Sub-indicators designed toprovide an overall evaluation of the Laboratory’s processes for management anddisposition of surplus physical assets relative to the expectations of DOE and Battelle.These sub-indicators and their specific levels (metrics) are developed jointly by DOE andBattelle based on one or more of the following criteria

●✎critical review of Battelle’s performance and historical trends,. benchmarking against private sector and other DOE R&D Laboratories,

74 SaltelleFY 1998Perfomce E$-a]uationA~nwIt

DOWJ.-97 -74Revision1, 6W98

● line management performance improvement goals, and. an overall goal of performance excellence.

Essentially all the Laboratory excess facilities have been transferred or removed, or placed ina standby “cheap to keep” condition with a minimum of utilities, surveillance, andmaintenance. For those facilities that remain in standby, monitoring must be parformed toassure any hazardous or radioactive material in the building is not escaping to theenvironment, and that unacceptable facility degradation is not occurring. Ultimately thesefacilities will be transferred to other contractors for final disposition, with the final dispositionremoving the liability and cost of the facility from the government. Ttsis performance ind!catoris composed of 2 elements which complement each othe~ one to assure that surplus facilityassets are being appropriately monitored, and the other to assure that appropriate efforts arebeing expended to transfer the facilities to other DOE elements that will execute facility finaldisposition.

4.3,4.1 Percent of material condition inspections performed

Description: Evary DOE facility that is vacant for more than 180 days of FY 1998shall have the material condition inspected while the facility is vacetad on thefollowing frequency

. at least twice per fiscal year if radiologically contaminated,● at least once per fiscal year if not radiologically contaminated,

Basis: This action is necessary to assure that degrading conditions in vacatedfacilities are identified to prevent potantiel hazard to the public, environment, siteworkers, and to protect DOE assets. Many vacated facilities are in remotelocations, and a significant potential exists for the facility to degrade without @

awaraness of the condition unless the building is inspected on a routinefrequency. Unacceptable deterioration of facility material condition will adverselyimpact the risk and sost associated with the facility.

Some facilities contain contamination, and a degrading exterior will allowcontamination spread from rainwater intrusion and runoff to the exterior of thebuilding, and from wildliie passing through the facility. The critical first step is toidentify when degrading conditions are creating a potential for a release path tothe environment, allowing corrective action to take place.

Since the appropriate action to take will depend on the risk, cost of repair,consequences of failure to repair, and projected future use of the facility, thesingle consistent measurable attribute is to assure that periodic inspetilons arecompleted, avoiding unknown degrading conditions and related potential costdue to additional damage.

Measurement The population of facilities in this indicator shall be all DOEowned facilities that are operated by Battelle and are vacant for more than 6months during the fiscal year.

Vacating a facility shell be defined as that time whan there is no longer abeneficial occupancy of a facility

. when the last person and their material have been moved out of the facility,and

75 Ballelk FY 1998PcrfOtn!aIICeEvaluationA$rcemIt

DOm-97 -74Revise” 1, 6KJ98

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

when any individual or organization that is currently paying for space in thefacility does not require access to the space,The inspection of material condition of a facility shall be documented,including as a minimum the facility involved, a summary of the materialcondition inspection, date of the inspection, and signature of personperforming the inspection.A list of vacated facilities with the associated vacate status change datesshall be documented at the beginning of FY 1998, and maintained currentthroughout the year,If the facility was vacated prior to the start of FY 1998, then the day ofvacating shall be considered to be the first day of FY 1998 for purposes ofmeasurement of this performance indicator.The date and time of day of vacating and inspections of a vacated facilityshall be considered to be performed on the day of vacating or inspection, at00:00 hours.Ail inspection certification documents should be delivered to the individual inAMT charged with oversight of the status of this indicator within 7 workingdays following the date of completion of the inspection.The measure shall be:

Inspection Success Ratio =IThe number of facilities that were insgected as reouired)” 100(The number of facilities that were inspected as required+ all facilities that were vacant for more than 6 months and were NOT inspected

as required)

4.3.4.2 Percent of surplus facilities transferred

Basis: During the last 2 years the Laboratory has removed 81 facilities fromactive inventory, with 43 of these facilities having been transferred or removed,leaving 38 excess facilities on the Laboratory’s inactive facility inventory. Thesefacilities are all in a “cheap to keep” condition with a minimum of utilities,surveillance, and maintenance. However, site resources are still consumed withthe ongoing surveillance and maintenance of the facilities to prevent additional orsubsequent damage from failure of building components or systems, to preventrelease of contamination the environment, and to prevent creating a safetyhazard for site workers.

It is in the best interest of the site to have the Laboratory excess facilitiesincluded with the other excess facilities on the Hanford site that are managed bythe associated “best in class” contractor. Surveillance and maintenance cangenerally be accomplished more economically by the contractors that aremanaging other facilities of similar types due to the economy of scale. Further,the final disposition of these facilities can be achieved far more economically bythe contractors who have existing organizations established for this type of work,since the Laboratory would have to create a duplicate organization andprocesses for execution of facility disposition.

All these facilities will continue to represent a financial liability, and in some casesan ongoing safety risk, until final disposition is achieved. The most economicaland fastest path forward for elimination of these liabilities is to execute a prompttransfer of these facilities to other appropriate site contractors.

76 Baud], FY 1998Perfomnce EvaluationA.qectnent

mm-97-74Revision1,6f6198

Measurement:

●

✎

●

The population of facilities in this indicator shall be the 32 DOE ownedfacilities that are operated by the Laboratory and are excess to theLaboratory mission, as shown on list below,Execution of transfer of a facility shall be evidenced by a completeddocument releasing the Laboratory from operating responsibility for thefacility. This may be from another contractor accepting facility operationalresponsibility, or DOE releasing the Laboratory from facility operationalresponsibility.The measure shall be:Transfer Success Ratio =(The number of facilities that were transferred) ● 100

32

The bow shaped Contingency Diegram recognizes the high up front investmentrequired to accomplish the transfer of surplus facilities.

Building Number Building Name

242 B/BL

303 c303 J314331 A622 D646-

2718 E3706-3731 1A

3745 A3745 B3746-3746 A3762-3764-6652 C6652 CSHED6652 D6652 DOME26652 G6652 H665216652 J6652 K6652 LP

RADIOACTIVE PART RES LABI CASK LOADINGBUILDINGMATERIAL EVALUATION LABORATORYMATERIAL STORAGE BUILDINGENGINEERING DEVEL. LABVIROLOGY LABORATORYSTORAGE BUILDINGRADIOECOLOGY FIELD LABSTORAGE BUILDINGRADIOANALYTICAL LABLAB EQUIP. CENTRAL POOU GRAPHITE MACHINESHOPELECTRON ACCELERATOR FACILITYPOSITIVE ION ACCELERATOR FACIRRADIATION PHYSICS LABRADIOLOGICAL PHYSICS LABTECHNICAL SECURITYOFFICE BUILDINGSPACE SCIENCE LABORATORYSTORAGE BUILDINGPUMPHOUSEATMOSPHERIC FACILITYALE FIELD STORAGEALE LABORATORY IALE HEADQUARTERSALE LABORATORY IIPUMPHOUSERATTLESNAKE MTN LOWR PUMPHOUSE

17 Batlclle!=Y 1998Pcrfo-ce EvaluationAFmt

mm-97.74Revwo. 1,6.6J98

6652 M FALLOUT LABORATORY66520 STORAGE BUILDING6652 PH FIRE PROT PUMPHOUSE6652 UP RATTLESNAKE MT. UPPER PUMPWBF 1 BOAT STORAGEWBF 2 STORAGE BUILDING

The performance rating for the performance indicator 4.3.4 will be determined by summingthe effectiveness scores for all sub-indicators from Figure 4H within Table 4.7, normalizingthescore using Table 4.9. That score isthentransferred to Table 4.6,

78 BatlelleFY 1998Perbrnance EvaluationA-..,

DOEJRL.97.74Revis,on1, 616198

*

Figures 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, 4E, 4F, 4G and 4H document the associated agreements onpeflormance expectations intheform ofcontingency functions. Theoverall performancerating for this outcome will be determined by summing the effectiveness scores for allObjectives as depicted in Table 4.8, below, normalizing the scores using Table 4.9 andcomparing the normalized sum to the rating scale in Table 4.10.

79 Baud!, FY 1998PerfcmnanceEvaluationA~ernaIt

(n

02

u

z

Ill

>1-

0u

L

L

OJ

LXXiRL.97.74Revuron 1.6J6c98

Figure 4A, Operational Excellence Objective 4.1, Contingency Diagram

lCO ,

95

A

6alS5

m

7570S5ea55so45

..4

40

35

24

25

20

15

$0

5

0

——___--————_.—..— ---

-5 2,5

.?0

.45

.20

.25

.20

.55

40 Peliman. I

45-70-75

.s445.90-95

f

.>03 6

.105

.1<0

.115

.120-125.1.93.<35.,43-145-1w t

Pelfmance Mess”re

m

1 t.WStaH ResP ,, 28

2 Clear Rd.. 3 e

3 Cm!xlm (%) 8,

4 Baland PIIS, 35 ,

QJxe LmatQi~ 41,12 4.1.23 41.34 41.45 4156 4.1,6

SCALES

80

mm-97-74Rev%!,” 1,6{6{98

InIn

u

z

UI

>

1-

0u

L

L

u

Figure 4B, Operational Excellence Objective 4.2, Indicator 4.2.1Contingency Diagram

so

85807570

65

6055

50

4540

35

3025

201510

50

-5.10.15

-20 2,’-25 /’

+.3 .~

a /’

4./

/“.45 /“

.% ❑ ~’-55 /’

40 ,~’45 ,“.70 3’

-75m

.85

.s02

-Ico.<05.110

.1151 /

L---l2 4.2,1.23 4,2,1.34 4,2.4.45 4,2.1.5

-44 /

81

●

Bmelle FY 1S98PerformanceEvaluationA&7eenwnt

mm-97.74Rewson 1, 6W98

Figure 4C, Operational Excellence Objective 4.2, Indicetor 4.2.2Contingency Diagram

[[

[

EIEIOYrnuzu!

>

1-

0IllLLU

-—----—--—---—-—”

70

p

,—

-5.10.15 III ❑ ,..-20 8

/--25 7 5 //

.?4 ,/./.

-35 /-

40 4.6/,

‘5

.45

.5a

.55

.64 3

.e5-70-75.&3a5-s0 2-95

.~w-105.?10

.1<5

-120 ?

.425

El Pefionnance

Qw l@saQ1 4,22.1

2 4,2,2.23 422.3

42.245 4.2.2,56 4.2267 4.2,2,78 422.8

L

PeI+ormiw,ce Measure

1 Unplndm.x”rm 4 II I I2 UnPIDex.mon9 2[

h3 want Releases :

4 Tranms Ew#, ,

5 Do,ehdex 45

6 SP,lls!fir EwlS 4

7 s.aaledscwms

8 Ccm!arn

82 BauelleW 1598Perfomce EvaluationAwe!na!t

03

v)

uzIll

>

1-

0

uL

L

ill

DOm.97-74Revision1, 61Q98

Figure 4D, Operational Excellence Objective 4.2, Indicator 4.2.3Contingency Diagram

95

90

85

80

75

70

95

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5 /“ / /

-10 .// // ““

/!/4”’3AH,/

/’/,/,.,,”

/,

-15

-20I ///’

,A@;,:y”*

-25

//

//’ /

-30 /’ / /

-35 /“ ,.”4 2’ ,/

-45 5 /“’-50 .,~

.5513’ / /

:16’/ ///:L’””/ >

/

nPerfamance

Cw.??!@.@!Q1 4.2.3.1

2 4.2.3.2

3 4.2.3.34 4.2.3.4

5 4.2.3.5. ,4, . .

-801 / / / 1;.......4.2.37

-95 1Y

-Ico 7

-105

.110 /

.,,. .

Perfmance Measure _5CALES

4 EC Index

2 P2 W2ste tvtn.

3 WM T“rnwou”d

4 WPcmtents5 Disp-cs.alPath

6 CDRR Submifs

7 Waste Prcj Ind

83 Bane]!, FY 1998Perfom”ce Evaluation .@reemt

.z

0

u.

.

.

.

z.

>

1-

“

.

u.u.

Ill

DOm-97 -74

Rw,,on 1, 6’6’98

Figure 4E, Operational Excellence Objective 4.3, Indicator 4.3.1Contingency Diagram

Ptim”ce

Cum I“d,catc.r

4.31.<

; 4.3.1.2

3 4,3.1,3

4 4,3.4,4

5 431.5

SCALES

, m,,6,, la.,ww . ,, . I I II I . I I2 am-”. .,8 ml m . . . . . 0, . m ,0 ‘,! -m !m ,* I3 A- ,“’, 6R4.ZO$I m !, ,8 ,7 ,, I ,, I I ,. ,3 ,,4 **,”,*”, . . . , I lfl [ I ,5,.,-, M+ S+.,, 355 s 75 . .25 37 I ?47, I ,, ,7X .

E4

IKXJRI-97.74Revision1. 616J98

Figure 4F, Operational Excellence Objective 4.3, Indicator 4.3.2Contingency Diagram

im95s65en75

70

%5

M

55

Y3

45

40

.15

$3

25

U 20

e 15

0 ,0

“5

too

.5

m .to

m .,$

w .20

z .25

..33

> .35

-.40

.4

0 -m

u +5

.@

.s

u .70 ?

.75

a

.&5

.$5 ,

.,

.,03 $

85 Batklle W 1998Perf.mnce Evalwion AGerne”t

KIIRL97-14Re,,sion 1. 6’6!98

.

.0

“

.

.

.

.

z.>

1-

“

.

.

.

.

Figure 4F, Operational Excellence Objective 4.3, Indicator 4.3.2Contingency Diagram

Ku 3swa5w75

70

65

ea

%

m

43

40

15

3

25

20

?5

10

5 ~10

., .*’.5

.40

.15

.20

-25

.20

.35

.40

.45

.$3

.55

a

.&5

.70 2

.75

m

.85

:1”/

85 Bmelk FY 1998Perfomncc Bvaluati.anAflernw,t

mm.97-74Revxion 1, 6{U98

Figure 4G, Operational Excellence Objective 4.3, Indicator 4.3.3Contingency Diagram

@

,00 ,

95

S4

85

80

75

70

65

80 4

55

m

45

40

25

30

25

UI 20

K 15

0 10

05

ul~ 3 ,3,2 .4-

.5 /./ /

02 .10

In .,5

w .20

z .25

Ill .=

> .35

-da

u .55

/

/.4 1

..65

u .70

-75

.80 3

45

.93

.95

Performance

-CUw8 kxlica@

1 4.3.3.1

2 4.3.3.2

3 4.3.3.3

4 4.3.3.4

86

wx.R!_.97 -74

Rcri,ton 1, 6J6198

.z0

Q.

.

.

.z

.>

+

“.IL..

Figure 4H, Operational Excellence Objective 4.3, Indicator 4.3.4Contingency Oiagram

,@

: /5U 2

45

40

35

30

25

20

<5

,0

5/ ,/

0 2

.5

.{0

.,5

-20 1

.25

.=

.s

.40

45

.%.55

e

.65

.70

.75

.84

.85

.$3

.,5

.KM

SCALE

ElPedmce

m-4.3.4,7

; 4.3.42

87 Banelk W 1998Perhmnce Evaluation A#ecIxn,

KxXfRL-97-74Revision1, UU98

Indicators performance Effectiveneaa ValueLevel Points Points

4.2.1 Occupational Safety & Health Composite4.2.1.1 Integrated Hazard Analysis4.2.1.2 Daya Away From Work Rate4.2.1.3 Employee Job Task Analysis4.2.1.4 Lost Workday Case Rate4.2.1.5 Chemical Management System lnvento~

CompositeTotal

Table 4.1 Occupational Safety & Health Composite Performance Rating Development

Indicators Performance Effectiveness ValueLevel Points Points

4.2.2 Radiological Control Composite4.2.2.1 Unplanned Exposures4.2.2.2 Unplanned Depositions4.2.2.3 Uncontrolled Release4.2.2,4 Satiafactow Responses Field Evaluations

:.L.L.”4.2.2.6 _. . .. ... .. . . . .... _.._.

sf Training499 =.Dose Index

Umianned Soills and Airborne

~4.2.2,7 Loss of Radioactive SOUI4.2.2,8 Skin and Personal Clothi

IrcesIing

Contamination’sComposite

TotalTable 4.2 Radiological Control Composite Performance Rating Development

Indicator performance Effectiveness ValueLevel Points Points

4.2.3 Waste Management and Environmental I IProtection Composite4.2.3.1 Environmental Compliance4.2.3.2 Pollution PreventionrWaste Minimization4,2.3.3 Seven-day T! ,.--I ,~~4.2.3.4 Correct Wast4,2.3.5 Alternative Disposal Paths I I I

“,, ,-, ””1,” I I I

te in Drum

4.2.3.6 Environmental Compliance and FieldService Representative Support to WasteGenerators4.2.3.7 Waate Indexing

Composite“Total I

Table 4.3 Waste Management and Environmental Protection Composite PerformanceRating Development

Balte)leF’Y 1598Pd.-c. EvaluationAFmIt

D@JRL-97-74Rmi,m 1, fJ&98

Indicator performance Effectiveneaa ValueLevel Points Pointa

4.3.1 Physical aaaetacquiaition sndmodification follow an integrated andsystematic process4.3.1.1 Percent of DOEgeneral plant projectfundinqthat is carried beyond the authorizedfundin~ year4.3.1.2 Composite Cost Performance Index4.3.1.3 Cycle time for Engineering Requestsaction plans4.3.1.4 Results of Benchmarking opportunities4.3.1,5 The Percent of adequate space

CompositeTotal

Table 4.4 Physical aaset acquisition and modification follow an integrated and systematicproceaa Performance Ratirrg Development -

Indicators Performance Effectiveness ValueLevel Points Points

4.3.2 Utilization of apace is commensuratewith science and technology mission needs4.3.2.1 Percent ofavailable offices occupied4.3.2.2 The actual average office space squarefoot per person4.3.2.3 Percent of available laboratories occupied

CompositeTotal

Table 4.5 Utilization of apace is commensurate with science and technology missionneeda Performance Rating Development

Indicators Performance Effectiveneaa ValueLevel Points Points

4.3.3 Maintenance requirements and workperformance enaurea physical aaaetavailability for planned uae4.3.3.1 Maintenance Work Request Age4.3.3.2 Maintenance Work Request Backlog4.3.3.3 Maintenance Overtime Usage4.3.3.4 Efficiencies of Scheduling Critical Work

CompositeTotal I

Table 4.6 Maintenance requirements and work performance ensures physical assetavailability for planned use Performance Rating Development

89 BatlclleW 1998PerformanceEvaluanonA~we”t

WWRJ.-97-74Rem,,,. 1, 61rS98

Indicator performance Effectiveness ValueLevel Pointa Points

4.3.4 Surplus physical aaaets are managed toreduce cost and risk4.3.4.1 Percent ofmaterial conditioninspectionsperformed4.3.4.2 Percent of surplus facilities transferred

CompositeTotal

Table 4.7 Surplus physical asaets are managed to reduce cost and risk PerformanceRating Development

90 Bandk FY 1998Pcrfomnw EvaluationAg!ecrnent

CCWRL97.74Rem,;.” 1,6J6,98

ELEMENT Value Weight Performance Effectiveness Value Obj.Points

WeightedLevel Score Points Weight Points

Tables4,14.7

4. Operational Excellence4.1 Establiah full integration ofES&H sc.tivities into work practicesand management. .4,1.1 tine managersand staff throughoutthe Laboratoryare clearly responsible forES&H performance4.1,2 ES&H roles, responsibilities,accountabilitiesand authorities are clearlyestablishedthroughout the Lsborstory4.1.3 Staff competence and level ofknowledge is commensuratewithassigned responsibilities4.1:4 A proper balance of prioritiesbetween the science and technologymission and ES&H performance4.1.5 ES&H standards and requirementsare clearly identified4.1.6 Work authorizationsand centrolsare tailored to work hazards

Obj 4.1 34%Total

4.2 Achieve operational excellencein worker safety and health, andenvironmental protection.4.2.1 Occupational Safety& Health 33%Composite4.2.2 Radiological Control Composite 34%4.2.3 Waste Managementand 33%EnvironmentalProtection Composite

Obj 4.2 33%Total

4.3 Achieve excellence in themanagement and use of Laboratoryfacilities and assets.4,3.1 Physicalasset acquisitions and 25%modificationsfollow an integrated andsystematicprocess4.3.2 Utilizationof apace is 35%commensuratewith science andtechnology mission needs4.3.3 Maintenance requirementsand 25%work performanceensures physicalassetavailability for planned use4.3.4 Surplus physical assets are 15%managed to reduce cost and risk

Obj 4.3 33%Total

Table 4.8 Operational Excellence Critical Outcome Performance Rating Development

a

91 Butelk W 1998Perfomce EvaluationAwanent

rwF/RL97-74Rew,,on 1, 6/6/98

Obj. 4.1 Obj. 4.2.1 Obj. 4.2.2 Obj.4.2.3 Obj. 4.3.1 Obj. 4.3.2 Obj. 4.3.3 Obj. 4.3.4Integrated OS&H RadCon Waste Physical&set

ES&HSpace

Comp. Comp.Maint.ReqYs Surplus Rating

Mgmt.& Acquitisions& Utilization andWork AssetsEnv’1Prot. Mods. PerfOnn.

330 280 440 5?5 310 77< zm <‘m cn

-.. -- 1 1 -.”

one 473 279 248 ‘-- ‘ ‘~~ I

I 446 I 264 I X&t

I LJa I L(YJ; 2’17 193 --- 1

“o,? 1 .,. . 1 ,... I . -- ---

--- --- I182 I 154 I 242 289 171 151 ‘“- i ‘176

77nc- , -..

263 155 138 ~en I ~fi I A- I

238 140 17A

. . 1 -. 1

t

70 I 110 I 131 78 i; cm .,-!

66 56 88 105 62 55 -. 1 -- 1I A? I RR I 70 I A7 A4 “0 40

-, 1 -. 1 “. 1 I17

,&I 14 I 22 ii 16 14 16 6

I n 1 n I n I

1 -.” I “-. I , c“ .J. ”

314 266 418 I ‘-- I iii499 261 304 11A I Aa297 252 . . . 266 1vu287

4.8238 374 .- -.. , -- 272

264102 4.7

224 352 420 248 220 256 96248

4.6210 330 394 ‘ --’” 1 . . .

240 90231

4.5196 308 368 79A 64

2154.4

182 LOO , a4 1 I ZU4 I 1(Y Z(J5 I 78198

4.3168 264 I 315 186 ‘1w+ I 1a? 72 4.2

w=, A4165 140 --- ,““149

““ .r.u126 198 .-. 144 54

1323.9

112 176 210 12: 110 128 48116 98

3.8154 184 109 96

99112 42

843.7

132 158 93 8?, QR ‘w83 7

3.6

I . . I 0“ I 3.5M 9A

503.4

, I ,- 1 7, 1 -,,I 2;1;

I -?” I I33

,0 3.353 31 7R ‘w ’19 3.2

.-0 0 0

3.1., . 0 0

-18 -143.0

-21 -28 -19 -13 -12 -1-36 -29

2.9-42 -52 -39 -26 -24 -2

-542.8

-43 -63 -78 -58 -39 -36 -3-72

2.7-57 -84 -~~A -77 . . -48 -4

-90 -712.6

-105 --- -- . . -60 -5 2.5-108 -86 -126 -156 -116 -78 -72 -6 2.4-126 -1oo -147 -182 -135 -91 -64 -7 2.3-144 -114 -168 -208 .154 .104 .Qfi -R 79

-IOL -ILO -1OY -4?4 -1 {5 -11/ -1 U5 -9 2.1-180 -143 -210 -260 -193 -130 -120 -lo 2.0-198 -157 -231 -286 -212 -143 -132 -11 1.9-216 -171 -252 -312 -231 -158 -144 -12 1.8-234 -185 -273 -338 -250 -169 -156 -13 1.7-252 -200 -294 -384 -270 -182 -168 :14 1.6-270 -214 -315 -390 -289 -195 -180 -15 1.5-288 -228 -336 416 -306 -208 -192 -16 1.4-306 -242 -357 -442 -327 -221 -204 -17 1.3-324 -257 -378 -468 -347 -234 -216 -18 1.2-342 -274 -399 -494 .366 .7A7 .Zm -40 4.I

I -,”7 I -, , I -.JL

.Ixl .08 .66 t

, .-. ! -- 1 I“ c-

---1 . ?,,, 1 . “,. I -,. . , --- ..- . . I

r -,. 1 --- I

-360 I -285.“ ,.,

I -420 I “-”-520 I -;;~ -260 -240 .7fi I a- +

Table 4.9- Operational Excellence Critical Outcome Score Normalization Table

92

IXWRL97.74Revision1, 6W98

I Total Score 5.0- 4.5 I 4.4- 3.5 I 3.4- 2.5 I 2.4- 1.5 1.4- 1.0Final Rating Outstanding Excellent Good Marginal Unsatisfactory

Table 4.10- Operational Excellence Critical Outcome Final Rating

93

ExWRL-97 -74Rew,on 1. &J6198

5.0 LEADERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT (15%)

Critical Outcome

Battelle will provide leaders and systems that effectively support the mission areas of theDepartment of Energy

5.1 OMective -The Contractor's leaders/managers create aworkenvironment that issuppotiveof innovation. (30%)

Note: Innovation includes the entire process, from problem identification to appliedaolufion. ltmeans that something newiscreated through theapplication ofcreativi~ andimagination, introducing a concrete solution. Acriticel element of thesuccess of theContractor in achieving their goals and the goals of DOE is dependent on achieving andmaintaining a workplace environment that supports innovation,


5.1.1 Composite evaluation of Leadership and Management focus areas asdeterminedbyl998Quality of Worklife (QWL) survey.

Description: The percent of staff reporting positive perceptions about each of theidentified QWL focus areas will improve over the 1997 QWL survey results by thepercentages defined for each indicator.

Baseline Information: The1997suwey included several questions designed to collectimproved information in several areas. Based ontheresults of thesut-uey conducted inAugust 1997, it was determined that three lab wide focus areas - Performance Feedback,Customer Service Model Implementation, and Management Alignment, AasocisteLaboratory Directors/Division Directors, will be targeted for specific improvement actionsduring FY 1998. There arethree critiml components within thework environment thatcreate goal clari~and affect staff saMli~to beinnovafive and productive. The threecomponents are 1) individual staff ability to define and focus on work that is challenging,2) individual freedom to decide how the work may best be accomplished, and 3)management support in terms of providing positive reinforcement and removing bsrrierstoallow staff tosuccessfully accomplish organizational goals. Theendobjective is tosupport innovation.

Performance Expectations and Related Assumptions: Thethree focus area sub-indicators, identified indetail below, will use LaboratoV wide composite data tiom theQWL survey.

Throughout the year, the Contractor will self monitor progress in improving the focusareas byincoWorating them into itsselfassessment process. Late in FY1998 theContractor and DOE will work with an independent outside firm to develop and administeran enhanced QWL survey to assess overall progress toward these improvement goalsand to identify focus areas for FY 1999.

94 Bxldk FY 1998PerformanceEvduuon Awrnent

ZXJEML.97.74Revision1.616198

To enable normative comparisons and ease the transition to independent outside review,the Contractor will shift from a 7 point Likert scale (used in the 1996& 1997 QWLsutveys) to a 5 point Likert scale. The following methodology will be followed to translatedata collected on a 7 point scale to a 5 point scale:

7 ooint scale 5 ooint scale1 12,3 24 35,6 47 5

Following this methodology, the 1997 baselines (5 point scales) used in this CriticalOutcome will be mathematically produced from 1997 QWL results (7 point scales). Forimproved alignment with national trends in reporting this kind of information, the reportingprotocol will shift from reporting statistical means to reporting percent positive. With afive (5) point Likert scale, plus NA, as the foundation, the positive decimal fraction is thesum of the number of 4 and 5 responses divided by the sum of 1 through 5, plus NAresponses (i.e., the total number of responses). Tha decimal fraction is then multiplied by100 to convert to a percentage,

5.1.1.1 Performance Feedback (Laboratory Widej The percent of staff reportingpositive perceptions in the 1996 QWL survey for Performance Feedback improve overthe 1997 results. The 1997 total favorable baseline percent positive is 43.4.

This composite includes the following questions from the 1997 QWL survey:

. My immediate manager regularly provides me with meaningful information on mystrengths and development needs.

. I regularly receive feedback from customers that tells me how well I am performing

. My manger regularly discussed my performance with ma.

. My division/directorate recognizes and rewards good performance.

. My manager provides ma with meaningful information for my career development.

5.1.1.2 Customer Service Model Implementation (Laboratory Wide) The percent ofstaff reporting positive perceptions in the 1996 QWL survey for the Customer ServiceModel Implementation composite will improve over the 1997 results. The 1997 totalfavorable baseline percent positive is 46,6.

This composite includas the following questions from thal 997 QWL survey

●

●

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

✎

My division/directorate works well together to implement the business model.I understand my group’s role in achieving PNNL’s vision and mission.My role in helping to achieve my group’s goals in clear to me.I have a clear understanding on the priorities for my organization.My role(s) are aligned with organizational priorities.My division/directorate has clearly defined business goals.In my opinion, my division/directorate is meeting its business goals,I view tha implementation of the business model as a workable approach to daalingwith the external markat,I suDoort the business model.

9.5

My ;ile for implementation of the businass model is claar.

Baue!k FY 1998Pafomce EvaluationASIWWN

CCJWRL.97.74Revision1.616198

5.1.1.3 Management Alianment. Associate Laboratory Directors/Division Diractors~Laboratotv Wide] The percent of staff reporting positive perceptions in the 1998 QWLsurvey for Management Alignment, Associata Laboratory Directors/Division Directorsimprove over the 1997 results. The 1997 total favorable baseline percent positive is 44.6.

This composite includes the following questions from thel 997 QWL survey:

●

✎

✎

●

✎

●

✎

✎

✎

I believe that my Associate Laboratory Director/Division management is interested inthe well-being of employees.I believa that my Associate Laboratory Director/Division management does a goodjob of communication with staff.I believe that my Associate Laboratory Director/Division management provideseffective leadership to PNNL.I believe that my Associate LaboratoV Director/Division management is leading ustoward a successful future.I believe that my Associate Laboratory Director/Division management understandsthe problems and demands facing the staff.I believe that my Associate Laboratory Director/Division management buildsteamwork.I balieva that my Associate Laboratory Director/Division management is creating asupportive work environment for the staff.I believe that my Associate Laboratory Director/Division management creates a workenvironment that supports innovation.I believe that my Associate Laboratory Director/Division management createdimprovements using last year’s QWL survey results.

If the elements making up this composite need to be modified, proposed changes will beworked in partnership between DOE and the Contractor and will be submitted and~~~8ved utilizing the approvad change control process by the end of the first quartar

5.2 Obiective - Battelle Leadership effectively uses self-aaseasment to monitor performance andto drive needed improvements enabling DOE to optimize oversight activities. (40%)

DOE-RL and the Contractor agreed that it would Da appropriate to consider placing aperformance indicator under this objective that addresses compliance. This compositeperformance indicator would be outcome oriented and provide additional assurance that theContractor’s self assessment processes are producing the desired results (minimization of non-compliance reports/activities). It was recognized by both DOE and the Contractor that there wasnot enough baseline information to make an intelligent forecast of the expected outcoma.Therefora, the proposed indicator will be maasured during FY 1998 within the Contractor salf-assessment program in order the establish a baseline and will be considered for incorporationinto the FY 1999 Critical Outcomes.

5.2.1 Contractor’s Internal Oversight’s annual averaged rating of tha Divisions/Directorates self-assessment program performance

96

Description: The Contractor’s internal Oversight organization will evaluate aach of theLaboratov organizations on their effectiveness in implementing tha self-assessmentprogram. The evaluation will be mnducted against requirements established within theLaboratory’s Standards Based Management System (SBMS). The evaluations will be

Batulk FY 198 Perfomce EvaluationAWCCMent

IXYX+L97-74Revision1, 616198

qualified on a 5 point scale. The results of the Internal Oversight evaluations will beaveraged to provide a measure of the effectiveness of the Laboratory’s implementation ofthe Integrated Assessment Program.

Baseline Information: Baaeline data was collected in FY 1997 by Internal Oversight’sannual assessment of13 organization’s implementation of self-assessment programs.The mean score for this evaluation was 2.8.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: The best score anticipated for FY 1998is a mean score of 3.7. The poorest score anticipated is a mean score of 2.8. Areasonable expectation for FY 1998 is a mean score of 3.4. This would be consideredexcellent performance.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: None identified.

5.2.2 DOES satisfaction with the implementation of the Contractor’s self-assessment process.

Deacripfion: DOE-RL counterparts of the major Laboratory organizations will besurveyed to determine their level of satisfaction with the Contractors’ self-assessmentprocess in the following areas:

● The DOE-RL level of participation with the Contractor in the development andexecution of the aelf-assessment plans.

. The DOE-RL level of participation with the Contractor in the communication andreporting of results of the self-assessment plans.

. The DOE-RL level of satisfaction with the Contractors’ effort in using the results ofthe self-asaessment to effect improvement.

The DOE-RL counterparts to be surveyed will be identified and agreed to jointly by theRL Management& Economic Transition Office Director and the Laboratory Director ofQuality by June 1, 1998. The survey questions shall be developed and approved byDOE-RUMET, in partnership with the Laboratory Director of Quality, no later thanDecember 31, 1997.

Baseline Information: This is the second year for this indicator and, except as modifiedby the addition of tha last bullet, reflects the maturity of the self-assessment process, ithas remained the same. Prior year (FY 1997) performance for the first two bullets was58% DOE-RL rating with their involvement, rC?SUlfing frOtTI a Satisfaction leVei Of 3.O Or

higher on a 5 point scale. Considering this, coupled with the addition of the self-assessment maturity indicators, the best level of performance that can be expectedduring FY 1998 is 90% DOE-RL satisfaction level of 3.0 or higher on a 5 point scale.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: The expected level of performance forthis indicator is a 58% DOE-RL satisfaction level of 3.0 or higher on a 5 point scale.

5.3 Obiective - Provide effective and efficient business management that enablesaccomplishment of objectives. (3O’%O)


97 Bmelle FY 1998Perfm!.me EvaluationASTCWIWJ

EQEIRL91 .14Rens,on 1, 6W9S

J=Y&i 4 ,.-;

rwm , A. . . .

.v~ .; 4 K K, .-;

r~ 4.-;

rv~ 4 7... ;

rv~

++3

e+eRte-

5.3.1 Research/support staff Isbor ratio

Description: The ratio of staff dollars expended on research atiivitiea relative to staffdollars expended on support activities.

This indicator will b6 based on the total labor cost of all staff plus Associated WrestemUniversity (AWU),atudente that charge to research activities. Research activities aredefined as all client funded projects including capital, Laboratory directed research anddevelopment (LDRD)projecta, internal research and development (lR&D), the programmanagement portion of program development and management, and that portion ofservice center Iabo? (inoluding’B8dJ) which is charged direct to client ftmded projects. Allother staff labor mstwill be considered support’ Labor cost will be the actual labordollars charged to the activities as described above.

Formula: Research labor cost divided by support labor rest.

Baseline Information: t%storical performance data is provided below.

FY9$22-’FY9522 FY962.R FY97 -.2.X

Performance

Target: - 2.70Neutral: 2.62Minimum. 2.50

98 Bx!dk FY 1998Perf.onnanceEvaluationA-,.,

ECIFJRL.97-74Revision1,6KJ98

. -

ever#a-

5.3.2 Average cost per research FTE

Description: Thetotalsveregb ckstchargad per fulltime equivalent charging to researchactivities.

This indicetorwill be based ontotalLaboratory costs under the 1830 wntra~ le~~ ~rectfimded capital and co@ruction casts, subcontractsand other Hanford contractor costs,single procurementsgredertlien.$1 M,:and specificone time only costs dircictedbytheDepartment of Energy.(eX”ROF.cbste)..Full time equivalents will be based on laborhours charged by Laboratoryetaff andAWU. atudentMo research activities excludingthose hours charged,to;dppitel~r construXion:[email protected] 1831 researchacfivities.

Formula Tota14830 wsta Ieesdired Wnd6~Hpti~an&@nsti’tion. msbjlm directfunded subcontrecteand other Hanford mntrector WSts,:less diract.fundedaingleprocurements greater.than$l M, and Ieksone timqmdy’DOE.directed mstsdvided by1830 research activitiesdabor>hou~dividedtiy 1832.’:R6searchactivitiesare rJefined.asall [email protected]*: h'&utiflg@p~l;:hbomti,~~tireded~=X~and:development(~RD),proj~;'intdrnaltiear~,mddeveloprneit!(iR~}.tieprogmmmanag6rnentportionof:prograrndeveloprnbntand rnanagernent;~nd ‘that<portionof-service canterlabor:(includjng’B&lJ)~ohis’bharged .Wrect!o;qlient!@ndedprojects.

99 Baltdlc W 1998 ?erfmnar,ceEvaluauonA-au

rx3EiRL-97-74

Reris,on 1, 6!6J98

Baseline Information: Historical performance data is provided below. All results will be inFY94 dollars for comparison and trending purposes. FY94 is the baae year of this metricacross the DOE complexas it representa the initial fracking year.

FY94 IZ’FY95 119; FY96 117:FY97 – 120;

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: A single assumption was used in thedevelopment of tlis indicator.

1. Afull time equivalent= 1832 houra

Performance:

Target 111Neutral: 116Minimum 122

5.3.3 DOES evaluation of overall Contractor performance in the business managementfunctional areas

Description: This indicator will measure tha overall effectiveness/performance of thebusiness management (BMOP)functions in delivering products and services andcomplying with applicable requirements as viewed by the cognizant DOE RLbusinessmanagement organizations. The BMOP functions include:

100

IYXIRL.97.74Revision1,616198

DOE-RL PNNL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT (BMOP) ACTIVITIES 4

SID/OEA Facilities & 1. Administrative Services (including mail, printing, andOperations Iibraty)

OEA Education & 2. Congressional, Public, and Intergovernmental Affairs

External Rel,

HRM HR 3. Diversity

BUD/CFR/FMD Finance and 4. Finance, Budget, and Internal AuditInternal Audit

SID Energy/lT 5. Information Management

METIPID Strat. Planning 6. Laboratory and Institutional Business Planning

PMDISID Facilities 7. Life Cycle Assets Management

HRM/OTR HR 8. Manpower and Personnel (including training)

SASISTP National 9. Nonproliferation and National Security which

Security includes the following:- Intelligence- Nuclear Safeguards and Security- Classification/Declassification- Emergency Management

SID Finance 10. Personal Property 4

PRO/CFR Finance 11. Procurement

OEA Comm. 12. Scientific and Technical Information Administration

STP Econ. Dev. 13. Technology Partnerships Administration

CWPIMET HR/Econ, Dev. 14. Worker and Community Transition

FMDISTP Legal 15. Work-for-Others Administration

Occ Legal 16. Legal and Patent Services

PerformanceE valuation: Performance against this Performance lndicatorwillbemeasured by the averaged adjectival rating assigned to each of the businessmanagement functions listed above. Each of thesixteen BMOPfunctional activitiesreviewed will be asked to provide an adjctival rating as follows:

Outstanding - 5Excellent - 4Good 3Marginal - 2Unsatisfactory - 1

101 BauelleFY 1598PerfoncanceEvaluationA-t

Cf3m-97-74RevsIo” 1, 6J6,98

RL business management organizations will utilize the contractor self-assessment as theprimary means forperformance evaluation. RLbusiness management organizationsmayutilize oneormore of the following, inaddition totheself-assessment, in evaluatingthe Contractors performance:

1. Operational awareness (daily oversight) activities performed throughout the year;2. For Cause reviews; and3. Other outaide agency reviews (OIG, GAO, DCAA, etc.) conducted throughout the

year.

The overall business management functions rating will be determined by the average ofallreviewed areas perthefollowing rating scale. All business functions shall be weightedequally.

5,0-4.5 = Outstanding4.4-3.5 = Excellent3.4-2.5 = Good2.4- 1.5 = Marginal1.4- 1.0 = Unsatisfactory

5.3.4 internal customer satisfaction with thequali~and effectiveness of business managementfunctions delivered products and services

Description: Feedback from Laborato~internal customary of theproducts and sewicesdelivered by internal Laboratory management systems will be obtained through the use ofa composite set of questions taken from the annual staff Quality of Work Life (QWL)survey. Thesuwey will usea5point UketisMle andwill beadministered during the4thquarter ifthe fiscal year. Thesurvey questions shall redeveloped andapprovedbyDOE-RUMET, in partnership with the Laboratory Director of Quality

Baseline Information: Baseline data forthis indimtorwas collected viathe FY97QWLsurvey. The data collected during that survey was evaluated on a 7 point Likert scale.Staff rated their satisfaction as a 4.5. This correlates to a mean score of 3.33 on a 5 pointscale.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: None


Figures 5A,5B and 5Cdocument theassociated agreements onpetiomance expectationsinthe form ofcontingency functions. Theoverall performance rating forthis outcome will bedetermined by summing the effectiveness scores for all Objectives as depicted in Table 5.1,below, normalizing the scores using Table 5.2 and comparing the normalized sum to the ratingscale in Table 5.3.

I 02 BaltelleFY 1998PerformanceEvaluaDon Amen,

LXJWRJ-97-74Revmio. 1,6L5198

Figure 5A, Leadership and Management Objective 5.1, Contingency Diagram

m+ 395

$0

85

84

75

70 465

m

55

m

Ill 45

a 40

035

v 30

e) 25

20

m ,5

07 ,0

Iu$

Zo

u .5

> .10

- .?5

1- .20

~ .25

w .30

u .35

u. -40

u 45

-54

-55

.60 ~,2

45

-70

.75 3

.80

-85

-90

-95

,s% ,,* .,. ,* ,m I2 CustSvcMcdel 35% 37% 3s+. 4,% 43% ,,% ,7% 4,%1 $,$4 ,,% ,,?. I I I I3 MgmtNiinnle”! 3$.1 [,7.1 [,9%[ 14,%1 14,%[ I,s%l 1,,%1 I,o%l I ,,%[ I S,%[ I I I

103 Baadk w 1998Pcrf.mam Evaluation Afpcment

LXXAU..97 .74

R,ws,on 1,6’4’98

Figure 5B, Leadership and Management Objective 5.2, Contingency Oiagram

K

o

u

(n

rnIn

Ill

z

u>

1-

0Ill

u.uu

u 40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5 ~

o 2 1

.5

.,0

.15

.,0

.25

40

35

.40

45

.50 3

.55

4045

.70

.75

.80

45

.,0

““l/

Peti0rmanc2

LuJxa Adiwlcu

1 5.2.1

2 5.2.2

SCALE1 1/0An””alRating 2.8 2,9 3,0 3, ,2 3.2 3,4 ,5 36 37 111111

0

2 DOE% $atisfact,o” 30 S4.?8424$50 5d5362~ 7074 7882s92

IC4 Banelk FY 1998PerformanceE,aluaDo”AwrneDt

EFFECTIVENESS SCORE

I

\ *

\\\\\\ \a

\

\

\

\\

\\

\

“<’’’’’’’’. .●

BimRb97.74

Revs,.. 1. 6J6,98

ELEMENT

5. Leadership and Management5.1 Battelle’s leaders/managerscreate a work environment that isaupp ortive of innovation.5.1.1 Composite evaluation of theLeadership and Management focusareas determined by QWL staffS1Irvev

5.2 Battelle Leadership effectivelyuses the Integrated AssessmentProgram to monitor performanceand to drive neededimprovements enabling DOE tooptimize oversight activities.5,2.1 Contractors’ Internal Oversightannual averagad rating of tha -Divisions/Directorates self-assessment program performance5.2.2 DOE’s satisfaction with thaimplementation of the Contractorsself-assessment processes

5.3 Provide effective and efficientbusiness management that enableaccomplishment of objectives.5.3.1 Research/Support staff laborratio5.3.2 Average cost per research FTE5.3.3 DOE’s evaluation of the overallContractor performance in thebusiness management functionalareas5.3.4 Internal customer satisfactionwith the quality and effectiveness ofbusiness management functionsdelivered products and services

Obj 5.1 30%Total

Obj 5.2 4070Total

Obj 5.3 30%Total

Total

Table 5.1- Leadership and Management Critical Outcome Performance RatingDevelopment

106 Batldk FY 1998Pcrbm”ce EvaluationA~er,m,t

EQEJRL97-74Rttiswn 1, 61U98

Obi. 5.1 Obi. 5.2 Obi. 5.3

Innovative Work Use of IAP to Drive Effective & EfficientEnvironment (QWL) improvement Business Management

Rating

250 190 320 5.0238 181 304 4.9225 171 288 4.8213 182 272 4.7200 152 258 4.6188 143 240 4.5175 133 224 4.4163 124 206 4.3150 114 192 4.2138 105 176 4.1125 95 160 4.0113 86 144 3.9100 76 128 3.868 67 112 3.775 57 9663

3.648 80 3.5

50 36 64 3.438 29 48 3.325 19 32 3.213 10 16 3.10 0 0 3.0

-lo -8 -13 2.9-20 -15 -25 2.8-29 -23 -38 2.7-39 -30 -50 2.6-49 38 -63 2.5-59 -45 -75 2.468 -53 -88 2.3

-78 60 -1oo 2.2-88 -68 -113 2.1-98 -75 -125 2.0

-107 -83 -138 1.9-117 -90 -150 1.8-127 -98 -163 1.7-737 -105 -175 1.6-146 -113 -188 1.5-156 -120 -200 1.4-166 -128 -213 1.3-176 -135 -225 1.2-185 -143 -238 1.1-195 -150 250 1.0

Table 5.2- Leadership and Management Critical Outcome Score Normalization Table

e

I 07 Bmdle FY 1998Perfomn= EvaluationAwnmt

D+XIW.97 .74Reri,,on 1. 6J6)98

Total Score 5.0- 4.5 4.4- 3,5 3.4- 2.5 2.4- 1.5 1,4- 1.0Final Rating Outstanding Excellent Good I Marginal Unsatisfactory

Table 5.3- Leadership and Management Critical Outcome Final Rating

108 Bmelle W 1998Pd..m”ce EvduatJonA-..,

D13ZJRL.97.74Revision 1, 61.$t98

6.0 COMMUNITY RELATIONS (5%)

Critical Outcome

Battelle will involve and benefit the communities to assure that PNNL and Battelle remainvalued assets to the Tri-Cities and the Northwest Region

6.1 Obiective - Battelie will serve the communities to further enhance the Laboratory’s status asa valued corporate citizen of the Northwest Region. (ss~o)

Just as the Pacific Northwest National Laboratoy’s business mission underlines its roleof advancing technology, its commitment to community drives its efforts to serve theneighborhoods in which the staff live and work. Science and technology providesignificant tools for improving the quality of life for all citizens. In order to focuscommunity and regulator involvement efforts for maximum impact in addressingcommunity neads, Battelle will establish a program to ensure its efforts directly addresssocial issues in the community. The program will establish processes and criteria forsetting priorities and levels of involvement in the community. The community will beinvolved in the establishment of the priorities and mix where appropriate.


6.1.1 Feedback from the local communities regarding their involvement in, and understanding of,the Laboratoy’s missions and programs.

Description: This indicator will use surveys and focus groups to gauge thesatisfaction and confidence of the local communities in the Laboratory’s corporatecitizenship. Such surveys will also provide data regarding the level of understandingwithin the community of the mission and programs of the Laboratory. The surveysand focus groups will also identify opportunities and potential mechanisms toenhance public involvement in Laboratoy decision processes.

Baseline Information: This is a new measure this year. No Baseline informationexists. The surveys and related activities conducted in FY 1998 will establish thebaseline for subsequent performance periods.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: Performance expectations aredetailed below:

Outstanding: - Feedback activities developed and conducted,- Programs/systems developedfimplemented, and- Results of feedback are used to affect program enhancements.

Excellent - Feedback activities developed and conducted,- Programs/systems developedhmplemented, and- Minimal use of feedback results to affect programenhancements.

109

W3EJRL97.74Rwt$Io” 1, 616198

Good: - Feedback activities developed and conducted- Programs/systems developed, and- No use of results of feedback to affect program enhancements.

Marginal: - Feedback activities developed and conducted,- No Programs/systems developed, and- No use of results of feedback to affect program enhancements.

Unsatisfactory: - No feedback activities developed and conducted,- No Programs/systems developed, and- No use of results of feedback.

6.1.2 Feedback from Northwest regulators regarding’their involvement in, and understanding of,the Laboratory’s missions and programs.

Description: This indicator will use surveys and focus groups to gauge the satisfaction ofNorthwest regulators with their interactions with the Laboratory. Such surveys will alsoprovide data regarding a broader level of understanding of the mission and programs ofthe Laboratory. The surveys and focus groups will also identify opportunities andpotential mechanisms to enhance regulator understanding of the broader missions andprograms of the Laboratory.

Baaeiine Information: This is a new measure this year. No Baseline informationexists. The surveys and related activities conducted in FY 1998 will establish thebaseline for subsequent performance periods.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: Performance expectations aredetailed below:

Outstanding - Feedback activities developed and conducted,- Programs/systems developedfimplemented, and- Results of feedback are used to affect program enhancements,

Excellent - Feedback acWities developed and conducted,- Programs/systems developed/implemented, and- Minimal use of feedback results to affect programenhancements.

Good: - Feedback activities developed and conducted- Programs/systems developed, and- No use of results of feedback to affect program enhancements.

Marginal: - Feedback activities developed’and conducted,- No Programs/aystems developed, and- No use of results of feedback to affect program enhancements.

Unsatisfactory - No feedback activities developed and conducted,- No Programs/systems developed, and- No use of results of feedback.

110 Baltdle I+’ 1998PerformanceEvaluationAsmnent

CaJSl,.97.74R<ri$io” 1,6MS98

6.2 Obiective - Battelle will put technology to work in the Tri-Cities and region to create andsustain a diversified and strong economy. (40%)


6.2.1 The number of new businesses started in the area.

Description: The number of new businesses started in the local area, i.e. the tencounty region surrounding the Hanford site, where the Contractor had a role intheir establishment through one of the ik’seconomic development programs.These programs include the Entrepreneurial Program, the Small BusinessTechnical Assistance Program, the Targeted Support Program, and theTechnology Partnerships Program.

New businesses to be tracked for purposes of measuring this performanceindicator will have clear future market potential and will be backed by soundbusiness plans. They will be technology-based, growth-oriented partnerships,joint ventures, entrepreneurial spin-offs, or businesses recruited to the Tri-Citiesarea in which PNNL was involved in their recruitment.

Baseline Information: Laboratory historical performance data is available andspans the past three years. This data was used in establishing the contingencyfunction for this indicator.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: None identified other than thosereflected in the contingency function for this indicator.

6.2.2 The propor60n of businesses starfed in FY 1997 that are sustained through thesubsequent fiscal year.

Description: This indicator measures the proportion of new businesses that werecreated in FY 1997 and sustained operations in FY 1998, where the Contractorhad a role in their establishment through one of it’s economic developmentprograms. In subsequent years the indicator will apply to the proportion ofcumulative new businesses created from FY 1997 onwards, As the number ofyears to which the indicator applies increases, the indicator will decline reflectingthe higher propor60n of firms in the baseline that can be expected to haveceased operations.

Baseline Information: The average number of new businesses created throughone or more of the Laboratory’s economic development programs in FY 1996and FY 1997 is 10. Of these, 80 percent were still viable as of August 1997.

6.2.3 Number of technology based jobs created or sustained.

Definitions: The “local area” is defined as the ten county region surrounding the HanfordSite,

Description: This indicator has been developed to track the number of high technologyjobs resulting from the efforts of the Contractor’s Economic Development Office (EDO).

Ill BattelleFY 1998PerformanceEvaluahonA-c

LXXYRI..97.74Revision1,6W98

The contractor has committed to create or help form new businesses and providetechnical assistance to existing businesses, collectively adding an average of 100 newjobs to the local area’s work force each year. Over the five-year term of the contract, thiswill result in adding 500 new jobs to the local area’s work force. It is recognized that the500 new jobs will not be created in a linear fashion, and that efforts in the firat year(s) ofthe contract will likely result in fewer jobs being added to the workforce than the lastyear(s) of the contract. Job creation goals will be established annually in this plan thatwill total 500 new jobs by the end of the five year term of the contract.

For the purposes of this indicator, jobs created before October 1, 1997, will not becounted toward the five-year goal of 500 new jobs, However, if EDO provides assistanceor support to businesses created prior to October 1, 1997, that they can demonstratehelped any of these existing businesses expand, the incremental jobs created will becounted toward the goal.

Baseline information: In FY 1996, EDO’S efforts resulted in the addition of 37 new jobs tothe area’s workforce. These 37 jobs were the end results of EDOS efforts which includedthe creation of ten new technology based businesses, and providing technical assistanceto 49 firms in the immediate Tri-Cities Area.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: None identified other than thosereflected in the contingency function for this indicator, The expected level of performanceis 25 new jobs added to the area work force. The maximum expected performance is 50,and the minimum expected performance is O.

6.3 Obiective - Battelie will continue/establish partnerships with local and regional organizationsto enhance science, mathematics, and technology education reform efforts in schools. (25%)

Partnerships are enduring, mutually beneficial relationships and may be characterized inthree categories: emerging, developing, and robust, Emerging partnerships are thoseagreements (formal or informal), based on meetings, discussions, tours, presentations,outreach activities and other substantive information exchanges, which lay thegroundwork for more substantive collaborations. Emerging partnerships are thethreshold level for inclusion in this indicator.

Appointments are opportunities for research-related activity or internship within theLaboratoy ranging in length horn 10 days to one year, with the majority being from 8-16weeks duration.


6.3.1 Number of partnerships beiween Battelle and school districts and other academic supportorganizations in support of science, mathematics, and technology education reform.

Description: Through focused partnerships, the Laboratory’s human andtechnical resources, as well as Battelle’s corporate distributions are iinked withschool districts and other academic support organizations to promote science,mathematics, and technology education reform. These partnerships linkinstitutional goals, interests, and capabilities so that substantival collaborationsbetween the Laboratory and schools and other academic support organizationsmay occur. Partnerships focus on: *

112 Baud], FY 1998Pahnance Evduauo” A@xnm,t

mwRL.97 .74Rev6,0n 1,616J98

1. Enhancing curriculum, instruction, and assessment in elementary andsecondary schools;

2. Strengthening professional development for taachers,3. Developing “connectivity” with schools using information technology;4. Providing equipment and materials to elementary and secondary

schools;5. Building science literacy for all, including those students historically

underrepresented in scientific and technical fields;6. Leveraging local, state, and national education reform efforts; and7. Supporting school-to-work opportunities for those who have the interest,

ability, and the classroom preparation to link their academic studies tothe world of science and engineering outside the classroom.

Baseline Information: Baseline performance for this indicator is now applicabledue to the elimination of all funding from DOE-HQ.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions: Expected performance for thisindicator is 18 partners. Best achievable performance is 24 partners. Poorestexpected performance is 10 partners.

6.3.2 Number of teacher and student (K-14) appointees from local/regional academicorganizations who participate in research/educetion appointments at PNNL.

Description: Just as the number of partners is a gauge of the commitment toscience, mathematics and technology education reform, the impact andeffectiveness of the partnerships is indicated by the number of appointees fromthe partners who participate in opportunities within the Laboratory.

Baseline Information: Baseline performance for this indicator is not applicabledue to the elimination of all funding from DOE-HQ.

Performance Expectation Related Assumptions Expected performance for thisindicator is 25 appointees. Best achievable performance is 35 appointees.Poorest expected performance is 15 appointees.

113

LXXIRJ.97.74Revision1, 616{98


Figures 6A, 6B and 6C document the associated agreements on performance expectations inthe form of contingency functions. The overall performance rating for this outcome will bedetermined by summing the effectiveness scores for all Objectives as depicted in Table 6.1,below, normalizing the scores using Table 6.2 and comparing the normalized sum to the ratingscale in Table 6.3.

I 14 Battdk FY 1998Peflomco EvaluationA~ent

KIEJRL.97 .74

Revxion 1.6’6,98

Figure 6A, Community Relations Objective 6.1, Contingency Diagram

o

m

u

z

u

>

1-

0Ill

L

u

ill

lC.I

95L

w

85

80

75

70

65

60

55

54

45

/

[/

40 /

35 /

30/

/25 /

20 /

15/

/10 /

5

0

-5

-10,.

~.-15

.20

.25

-30a.

.35

.40

45 /.-

-S3 2

.55

.64 /

-65.70

.75 P“

.80

-85

-s0 /

Perfwma.mm m

1 6.1.12 61.2

Perfcimanca Indicalcf SCALES

1 Cmnm”n,tie, u“,.! I I I I I M,,o. I I I I I G& I I I I I I I EmI I I I 0 “t%!

2 Reg.lalor, U.S.! MaIQ. G& E= 0.!s!

115 Bwte]k FY 1998Perfomce EvaluationAw!nent

Exx/Rl.-97-74Revision1.616198

Figure 6B, Community Relations Objective 6.2, Contingency Oiagram

95L

so

85

60

75

70

65❑

64 2s

m

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

.5

-40 2.15

-20

.25

-34

-35

-40 3

45

.50

-55

-60 2

-65

.70

.75

.80 ❑-65

-s3..<

Perfwmnce Ind,cator SCALES

1 N6w B“s,nesse, 0,23 456, ~glo

2 Susta,”edB“s,ne,,. mm, % ~..m=, -mm

3 No. JohsCreated 057015 ‘202530m ~0~~~0

116

lx2m-97 -74

Revwon 1, 6J6,98

Figure 6C, Community Relations Objective 6.3, Contingency Diagram

OY

07uzw>

1-

0

u!

L

u.u

lca <

95

90

85

80

75

70

65

w

55

50 2

45

40

35

m

25

20

15

40

5

0

.5

-10 2

.15

.20

.25 1

m.35

40

45-w-55

a

m

Perk?rrniUK.e

@J.-e~-55

1 6,31.70 2 6.3.2

.75

+0

45

-93

-95

Perfmma”ce I“dkatcf SCALES

, Palrwsh,p, ,0 11 12 13 ,4 15 16 17 ,8 ,9 20 2, 22 23 24

2 Ammt=s !51

I I I I II I I I201 I I I 1251

i

I I I 1X21 I I I I 351 I I I I I I I I

117 Banelk FY 1998P.erfomc< EvaluationAwcnm

D0EJTW97-74Rev!,,., 1, W6198

ELEMENT Performance Effectiveness Value Weight WeightedLevel Score Points Points

6. Community Relations6.1 Battelle will serve thecommunities to further enhancethe Laboratory’s ststus as a valuedcorporate citizen. .6.1.1 Feedback from the localcommunities regarding theirinvolvement in, and understanding of,the Lab’s missions and programs6.1.2 Feedback from Northwestregulators regarchng their involvementin, and understanding of, the Lab’smissions and programs

Obj 6.1 Total 35%

6.2 Battelle will put technology towork in the Tri-Cities and region. . .6.2.1 Number of new technology-based business starts6.2.2 Number of businesses started inthe previous year that are sustainedthrough the subsequent year6.2.3 Number of technology-basedjobs created or sustained

Obj 6.2 Total 40%6.3 Battelle will continue/establishpartnerships with local andregional organizations to enhancescience, mathematics andtechnology education reform . . .6.3.1 The number of partnershipsbetween Battelle/ PNNL and schooldistricts and other academic supportorganizations6.3.2 The number of student andteacher (K-14) appointees from localand regional partner organizations atPNNL

Obj 6.3 Total 25%Total

Table 6.1- Community Relations Critical Outcoma Performance Rating Development

●

e

118 BatlelleW 1998Perfon71anw EV,hUUO” A@crnent

D-WJTU..97.74

Revs.” 1, 416,98

Obi. 6.1 Obi. 6.2 Obi. 6.3

Corporate Citizenship Economic DevelopmentLocal and Regional

Education PartnerehipaRating

150 200 150 5.0143 190 143 4.9135 180 135 4.8126 170 726 4.7120 160 120 4.6113 150 113 4.5105 140 105 4.496 130 98 4.390 120 90 4.283 110 83 4.175 100 75 4.066 90 66 3.960 80 60 3.853 70 53 3.745 60 45 3.636 50 36 3.530 40 30 3.423 30 23 3.315 20 15 3.26 10 8 3.10 0 0 3.0-6 -10 -2 2.9

-15 -20 -4 2.6-23 -30 -5-30

2.7-40 -7 2.6

-38 -50 -9 2.5-45 -60 -11 2.4-53 -70 -12 2.3-60 -80 -14 2.2-66 -90 -16 2.1-75 -100 -’18 2.0-83 -110 -19 1.9-90 -120 -21 1.8-98 -130 -23 1.7

-105 -140 -25 1.6-113 -150 -26 1.5-120 -160 -28 1.4-128 -170 -30 1.3-135 -180 -32 1.2-143 -190 -33 1.1-150 -200 -35 1.0

Table 6.2- Community Relationa Critical Outcome Score Normalization Table

Total Score 5.0- 4.5 I 4.4- 3.5 3.4- 2.5 2.4- 1.5 I 1.4- 1.0Final Rating Outstanding Excellent Good I Marginal

o

Unsatisfactory

Table 6.3- Community Relations Critical Outcome Final Rating

119 Bmelle FY 1998r’erfomnte E,aiuatim &crJ)I,n,

CX3L’RL97 .74

Revision 1, 6’6198

111.SELF-ASSESSMENT

RL and the Contractor view self-assessment as the mechanism to determine if the organization isaccomplishing agreed-to critical outcomes anddoing soinamanner that is acceptable. Inaddition, RLusesthe Laborato~'s self-assessment asaprima~tool forevaluating the overallperformance of the Laboratory.

The Contractor is required to deliver a Self-Assessment Plan to RL within the first quarter ofFY98.

The Contractor is required to provide monthly updates on the performance indicators, a formalstatus briefing at mid-year, and a formal self-evaluation report at year-end with specific dates tobe agreed upon by the Laboratory Director and the RL Assistant Manager for Science&Technology.

In addition, the year-end report must provide:. anoverall summary ofperformance for FY98● petiormance ratings foreach critiml outcome andthe Laborato~overall, and. asummaw ofkeystrengths andweaknesses identified aspaflofthe

Division/Directorate level self-assessment activities.

Division and Directorate-level self-evaluation reports are required to be submitted to theContractor’a Director of Quality as part of the Integrated Self-Assessment Program. These reportsare not required deliverable to RL, but they should be made available to the appropriate RLcounterparts for purposes of assisting RL with their management and oversight responsibilities.

The Contractor’s Independent Oversight organization has specific responsibility for evaluating the

m

overall effectiveness of the Division/Directorate’s self-assessment efforta. The specific results ofthis evaluation are incorporated as part of the Leadership and Management Critical Outcome,however, a formal report providing additional detail on these evaluation will be available to RL inOctober, 1998.

RL will conduct an annual performance review in October, 1998. This review will provide RL witha formal opportunity to followup on any specific issues associated with the critical outcomes orDivision/Directorate level self-assessment activities. However, RL and PNNL intend for routineinteractions around the Laboratory’s ongoing self-assessment activities to enable RL to reducethe scope and scale of this review, Using the Laboratory’s year-end self-evaluation report,knowledge gained through daily interactions and the annual performance review, RL will providethe Contractor with a written performance appraisal in November, 1998.

120 Baadle FY 1998Pcrfom”cc Evaluaocx!AFmt

KWRL97 .74

Revision 1. 616~Z

APPENDIX A CHANGE CONTROL TRACKING SHEET

FY98 Performance Evaluation Agreement

Identification:

Date:

Critical Outcome:

Objective Number(s): Performance Indicator Number(s):

Discussion:

1. Description of Proposed MoW]carion: Attach tothisfonm

2. Rationale{Justification for Modification Attach tothisfonn.

Concurrence:

PNNL Point-of-Contact (preparer):(Typed or F’nnted Name) / (Initials) / (Date)

RL Point-of-Contact(Typed rarPrinted Name)/ (Initials) / (Date)

PNNL Critical Outcome Owne~(Ty@ or Printed Nanw) / (Initials) I (Date)

RL Critical Outcome Owner:(TWd or Printed Name) / (Initials) / (Date)

Administrative Processing :

PNNL Review RL Review:

Revision of Performance Evaluation document into which the Change was incorporated:

Contract Modification Required? — yes — NO

.4Durovak

PNNL Contracting Off]cer RL Con&acting Officer

(Name Typed) (Date) (Name Typed) (Date)

a Rev,sion O, 10III97

121 Batdle FY 1998PerformanceEvduanonA-nt

tom-97-74

Revision 1, W$98

e APPENDIX B: POINT OF CONTACT MATRIX

ELEMENT PNNL RL

Billy Shipp / Debbie Trader /1. ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY Mark Hanaon Roger Preaaentin1.1 Develop innovative technologies andapproachea Billy Shipp Roger Preeeentin1.1.1 Number ofinnovative technologies and approaches Mark Hanson Theresa Aldridgesuccessfully demonstrated1.1.2 Provide significant solutions to Hanford problems/needs Rod Quinn Shannon Saget1.1.3 Number of new environmental technology concepts Rtck Brouns Roger Pressentinidentifiedldisclosed1.2 Ensure innovative technologies and approached are Billy Shipp Roger Preasentindeployed1.2.1 Number of formal expressions ofinterest entered into Rick Brouns Roger Pressentin1.2.2 Number of innovative technologies and approaches Tom Page Shannon Sagetsuccessfully deployed in commercial practice1.3 Effectively lead the technical aapecta of the national Terri Stewart Jeff FreyTanks Focus Area1.3.1 Effective definition oftechnical solutions across the DOE Terri Stewart Jeff Freycomplexi .3.2 Adequate technology delivey to solve complex-wide Terri Stewart Jeff Freyproblems1.3.3 Adequate tracking of technical progress to baseline Terri Stewart Jeff Frey

*

2. SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE Gemy Stokea Debbie Trader/John Neath

2.1 Conduct quality scientific effort that provide new Gerry Stokea Oick Goranaoninsights2.1.1 Results ofpeerpeviews of Relevance and Excellence, Ron Walters Dick Goransonincluding Divisional reviews2.1.2 Recognition by the scientific community, including awards, Gerry Stokes John Neathinvited talks at major scientific meetings, and service on majorcommittees and scientific bodies2. i.3 Number of R&D 100 and FLC Awards Julie Gephart John Neath2. i.4 Number of publications in peer reviewed journals Erik Anderson John Neath2.2 Deliver high-value work that ia relevant to DOE missions Gerry Stokes John Neathor national needa2.2.1 Customer feedback onrelevance andexcellence of critical Jeff Smith John Neathprojects2.2.2 Demonstrate project management discipline across all Mike Mitchell Jeff Freyproduct lines by meeting critical milestones and budgetbaselines2.2.3 Number of quality academic partnerships Erik Leber I John Neath

Jeff Estes

I22 Bmtdle W 1998Perfomnce EvaluationA-,,,

DiJWRL-97.74Revision1,6W98

Jerry Work /3. SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL CONTRIBUTIONS Gerry Stokes I

Billy Shipp /Mike Kluse

3.1 Develop sndapply innovative arms control, Mike Klusenonproliferation, and intelligence technologies that enhancenational security and reduce the danger from weapons ofmass destruction.3.1.1 Number ofrelevant contributions tonationalsecuri~ Larry Morganmohlems3.1.2 EMSL contributions to national security problems Larry Morgan3.2 Develop and deploy energy technologies thst increase Jerry WorkIhe efficiency, improve the reliability, and reduce theadverse health and environmental impacts of energywoduction and use.3.2.1 Mversification of thescience andtechnology.based energy Bryan Mohler]usiness,1.3 Develop and expand fundamental research programs Gerry Stokes:oupled to the mission of DOE and other mission orientedlaboratoriesL3.I Number of staff obtaining Principle Inveatigor-initiated Gerry Stokeaundamental research grants;.3.2 Number of agencies providing fundamental research funds Gerry Stokes1.4Develop research programs within the Wiley Laboratory Gerry Stokeshat effectively use its resources surmortina both

Debbie Trader/Dick Goranson

Dick Goranson

Dick Goranson

Dick GoranaonJohn Neath

John Neath

John Neath

Iohn Neath

Iohn NeathIohn Neath

undamentsl and applied research n’eeds -1.4.1Wiley Lab research funding FY99 Shirley Rawson Jeff Day1.5Diversify the environmental sciance and technology Tom Page Jim HansonIusiness base and increase the scientific and technicalcontributions to clients.5.1 Number of environmental S&T clients Tom Page Roger Pressentin

Dick Watkins / Roger Christensen. OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE Peggy Williams / Craig Richins I.1 Establish full integration of ES&H activities into work Dick Watkins Craig Richins,ractices and management at all Laboratory levels.1.1 Line managers and staff throughout the Laboratoy are Kelly Beierschmitt Craig RichinsIearly responsible for ES&H performance.1.2 ES&H roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and Kelly Beierschmitt Craig Richinsuthorities are clearly established throughout the Laboratory.1.3 Staff competence and level of knowledge throughout the Kelly Beierschmitt Craig Richinsaboratory is commensurate with assigned responsibilities.1.4 A proper balance of priorities between the science and Kelly Beierschmitt Craig Richins!chnology mission and ES&H performance is achievedroughout the Laborato~,1.5 ES&H standards and requirements are clearly identified Kelly Beierschmitt Craig Richins.1.6 Work authorizations and controls are tailored to work Kelly BeierschmittBZWdS

Craig Richins

.2 Achieve operational excellence in worker safety and Dick Watkins John Trevinoealth, and environmental protection,2.1 Occupational safety and health Composite Dave Higby Maple Barnard

..2.2 Radiological Control Composite Dave Higby Mary Beth Burandt.2.3 Waste Management and Environmental Protection Gary McNair Maple Barnard

e;omposite

123 Bw.elk m 1$98PerformanceEvaluationA-t

DOEML-97-74

R<ri,,.an 1, 616~8

4.3 Achieve excellence in the management and uae ofLaboratory facilities and assets4.3.1 Physical asset acquisitions and modifications follow anintegrated and systematic process4.3.2 Utilization of space is commensurate with science andtechnology mission needs4.3.3 Maintenance requirements and work performance ensuresphysical asset availability for planned use4.3.4 Surplus physical assets are managed to reduce cost and

5. LEADERSHIP& MANAGEMENT

5.1 Battelle’e Leaders/Managers create aworkanvironmentthat is supportive of innovation5.1.1 Composite evaluation of the Leadership and Managementfocus areas determined by FY97 QWL staff survey5.2 Battelle’s Leadership effectively uses the IntegratedAssessment Program to monitor performance and to drivaneeded improvements enabling DOE to optimize oversightactivities5.2.1 Contractors’ Internal Oversight annual averaged rating ofthe Oivsions/Directorates self-asseasment program performance5.2.2 DOES satisfaction with the implementation of theContractors self-assessment processes5.3 Provide effective and efficient busineaa managementthat enable accomplishment of objectives5.3.1 R6search/Supporl staff labor ratio5.3.2 Average cost per research FTE5.3.3 DOES evaluation of the overall Contractor performance inthe business management functional areas5.3.4 Internal customer satisfaction with the quality andeffectiveness of business management functions deliveredproducts and services

6. COMMUNITY RELATIONS

6.1 Battelle will involve tha public and sewe its communitiesto further enhance the Laboratory’s status as a valuedcorporate citizen of the Northwest Region&l ‘l Feedback from the local communities regarding theirinvolvement in, and understanding of, the Lab’s missions andprograms6.1.2 Feedback from Northwest regulators regarding theirInvolvement in, and understanding of, the Lab’s missions andprograms&2 Battelle will put technology to work in the Tri-Cities andregion to create and sustain a diversified and strongeconomy&2.1 Number of new technology-based business starts6.2.2 Number of businesses started in the orevious vear that aresustained through the susequent vear&2.3 Number of technology-based jobs created or sustained&3 Battelle will conthrue/establish partnerships with localand regional organizations to enhance science,

Peggy Wtlliams

Greg Herman

Dwight Hughes

Lynn Eberhardt

John Bumgardner

Rich Adams /Paula 6[ppen /Tom BaranouskaeRich Adame IPaula BippanRich Adams /Paula BippenJaff Smith

Lany McClellan

Larry McClellan

Jeff Smith

Greg TurnerGreg TurnerJeff Smith

Jeff Smith

hMkeSchwenk /Jack Bagley

Mike Schwenk

Mike Schwenk

Mike Schwenk

Mike Schwenk

Erik StenehjemErik Stenehjem

Erik StenehiemJack Bagley

Cesar Collantea

Kyle Sato

Kyle Sato

John Trevino

Kyle Sato

Joe W!ley

Joe Wilay

Joe Wiley

Joa W[ley

+Joa Wiley

-

Steve EinanSteve ElnanMark Coronado

Joa Wilay I

I

I

124 Smdk FY 1598PerformanceEvalwJo” A-eat

mF/Rl.-97.74Revision1,&W98

mathematics and technology education reform efforts inachoola6.3.1 The number of real partnerships with school districts and Jeff Estes John Neath *

academic support organizations6.3.2 The number of teacher and student (K-14) appointees from Jeff Estas John Neathlocal/ragional academic organizations who participate inresearch/education appointments at PNNL

125 BatlelleFY 1998Pe+arrnanceEvduxk?n Awmed

@CT Z 1 IWb,Addressees-Letter dated

99-MET-003

DOE-RL

NAMEJK AbsherJD BauerLK BauerGM BellSR BrechbillRF Christensen

R Cruz

TL DavisSR EinanKA EnsignJK Erickson

L EricksonRB GoransonDG OggCA HansenEW HigginsJE KinzerPM KnollmeyerPW KrugerAE LorenzAQ MurphyW NeathJE OlleroLL PiperCR RichhrsKK RandolphJE RasmussenRM RosselliRP SagetDJ SansottaSM SandlinJL SpracklenRR TlbbattsDE TraderSJ VeitenheimerJD WagonerJW Wllev

mA7-50AI-61HO-12A5-52A4-52K8-50Al-55K8-50K8-50A7-88K8-50A7-80K8-50A5-52S7-41A5-58S7-50A5-11A5-54A7-88A7-29K8-50A5-18A7-50K8-50A7-75A5-15K8-50G6-52A6-36HO-12A6-35A7-89K8-50A5-55A7-50K8-50

00E Rea~ing Room H2-53Central Files B1-07Correspmdence

Control A3-01

W/ATTACH. W/O ATTACHx

x

x

xxxx

xx

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

xxx

xxxxx

xx

xxxx

x

J,

Addressees - Letter dated @CT 2 i i%hI., 99-MET-003

W

NAME

EN AndersonJF BagleyTJ BaranouskasKJ BeierschmhtPJ BippenJG BurrDL CarrollLR EberhardtJC EstesTA FrybergerKJ GaitherGK GerkeMS HansonGA HermanDP HigbyEH HirlKL HoewingAK IkenberrySL KellerLV KimmelM Khrse“~ Kubl-KhngerRR LaBargeWJ MadiaTE .McClainLB McClellanGW McNairBL MohlerLG MorganCM NovichTL PageEW PearsonSA RawsonGL RomanoDE RyderDM ShekarrizBD ShippJW SmithPP SnorekML SoursEJ StenehjemGM Stokes

m

P8-55K1-74KI-70P7-79K1-43P7-79P7-79P7-08K1-72KS-84P7-60K9-44K9-02KI-66P7-75K5-10K1-59P7-79P7-78P7-79K6-48P7-22K1-30K1-46K1-71K1-33P7-75K7-50K6-48K1-41K9-18KI-50KS-84K3-06KS-53BSRCK9-01K1-40K1-30K9-44K9-78K9-95

W/ATTACH. WIO ATTACH.

xx

xx

xx

x

x

x

xxxx

x

xx

xx

xx

x

xx

x

xx

xxxx

x

xxx

xxx

xxxxx

Addressees - Letter dated @CT 2 I 19$8

99-MET-003

NAME MSIN W/ATTACH. W/O ATTACH.

BR Stults K9-76

GL Turner K1-60

W Wald K2-22

RA Walters K1-79

RS Watkins P7-75

PL Weeks P7-79

MA WMiams K1-48

GL Work K7-73

Hanford Technical P8-55Library

DQ?&!x?

xx

xx

xx

xxx

NAME ADDRESS W/ATTACH. W/O ATTACH.

AG Joseph

MA Krebs

CW Billups U.S. Department of EnergyGTN, ER-8319901 Germantown RoadGermantown, MD 20874-1290

DA Jacobson U.S. Department of EnergyFORS> EE-11000 Independence Ave., SWWashington, DC 20585-0118

U.S. Department of EnergyFORS, ER-71000 Independence Ave., SWWashington, DC 20585-0118

U.S. Department of EnergyFORS, ER-I1000 Independence Ave., SWWashington, DC 20585-0118

JM LaBarge U.S. Department of EnergyFORS, ER-71000 Independence Ave., SWWashington, DC 20585-0118

AM Zerega U.S. Department of EnergyFORS, ER-51000 Independence Ave., SWWashington, DC 20585-0118

x

x

x

x

x

x

Department of Energy

RichlandOperationsOfficeP.O. Box 550

Rich[and,Washington 99352Q!&T.21 ]9$16

Addressees - See Attached

FISCAL YEAR 1998 BATTELLE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AGREEMENTREVISION 1 CHANGES

The attached revision to the subject document (DOE/RL-97-74) has been negotiated and agreedupon by both RL and Battelle throughout the year. Please replace your current copy (Rev. O) withthe attached. To save paper, the hard copies of the Revision 1 document are not being issued toall the original recipients. Those not receiving hard copies can view the changes by accessing therevised document at the following URL:

httu://qua]itv. orrl.gov/outcomes/co summ.html

The following summary of the changes is provided for your information:

1. Page 25,Figure 2C, Customer Feedback Scoring Matrix: This table was unclear, causingconfusion as to the Effectiveness Values associated with certain levels of performance. Thetable was cleaned up, an explanation of the ranges of values will be added and the “star 98”will be revised to show that this is the FY98 target, not that it is the value of 98 effectivenesspoints, This change was editorial only.

2. Page31, PI 3.1.2, Wiley Laboratory contributions addressing national security problemxAdded a sentence at the end of the Description paragraph to address an addhional assumption.Deleted paragraphs A and B of the Performance Evaluation section and replaced them withtext that clarified the parameters to be measured.

3, Page 32, PI 3.2.1, Diversl#cation of /heS&T energy businesx This change expands on theoriginal language which too narrowly defined the client set as only DOE-EE/OT’T. Thecorrect definition of this client set should include all Northwest Alliance for TransportationTechnologies (NATT) related work in DOE-EE/OTT, DOE-LT~ DOE-BES and industrialclients.

4. Page 42, Figure 3E, Environmental Technology Customer Diversi~ Matrix, and Table 3.2,Normalization Table on page 47: The values in the figure and the table did not match as theyshould. Changes were made to the Matrix prior to signing Revision O and did not get capturedin the Table. Figure 3E was cleaned up to be more readable. Table 3.2 was amended to matchthe va!ues in Figure 3E.

Addressees99-MET-003

-2-

5. Page 48, PI 4.1.3, Staf$Competence and level of working knowledge throughout theLaboratory. This indicator was modified to clari~ the method of collecting data and thecalculations to be used to determine performance.

6. Page 54, PI 4.2.1,1, Integrated HazardAnalysig PI 4.2,1.3, Employee Job TaskAnalysis; PI4.2.1.5, Chemical Management SystemInvento~, and PI 4.2.2.4, Satisfactory Responses toField Evaluations o~ Training:Changes made to the performance indicators involve therevision of reporting dates and the clarification of definitions and the Performance Indicator4.2.2.4 description.

7. Page 57, PIs 4.2,2.1, UnplannedExposures, and 4.2.2.2, UnplannedDepositions; Minorwording changes were made to correct edhorial errors of Revision O.

8. Page61, PI 4,2.3.2, Pollution Prevention/WasteMinimization: Changes were made in thissection to further define the terms ‘(Life Cycle Cost Savings” and “Calculation of WasteReduction.” In addition, information was added to clarifi the Baseline used to make thecalculations.

9. Page 66, PI 4.3.1.1, Percentage of the FY 1998 General Plant Project (GPP)findsprovidedby HQ: This change clatifies the use of funds for this performance indicator and provides amore complete description of what finds are included in the equation for computing presentcarryover.

10, Page 67, PI 4.3.1,3, Cycle Timefor Service Action Requests: This change incorporates theuse of the new Service Request (SR) system into this performance ind]cator. This system wasnot in place at the time of the original document. In addition, thk modification incorporatesthe philosophy, process and verbiage of the SR system.

11. Page 97, PI 5.2.2, DOE Satisfactionwilh Se~-Assessments, and Figure 5B, did not match.Changes were made to the original text prior to signing that did not get passed t.o theContingency Diagram, Figure 5B. Figure 5B was revised to reflect the agreed to targetperformance level of 90% and the Expected level of 58% in the text (page 92) as opposed tothe current values in Figure 5B.

12.Page 98,PI 5.3.1, Research/supportstaff labor ratiq and PI 5.3.2, Average Cost perresearch FTE. The method used to calculate these indicators has been modified to match thestandard “Goldman Metrics” that are reported to DOE Headquarters by all of tbe NationalLaboratories. This allows both Battelle and DOE to better compare PNNL’s performance tothe other National Labs. The revised calculation method is described in the text and therevised performance range is shown in the revised Contingency Diagram.

.

. . ., b 21 !*8

Addressees -3-

99-MET-003

13.AppendixB,Point of Contact Matrix: This appendix was updated to reflect staffing changesin DOE/RL and Battelle.

Should you have any questions regarding this subject, please contact Terry L. Davis, of the RLManagement and Economic Transition Division, on (509) 372-4612.

fiscal year 1998 battelle performance evaluation agreement/67531/metadc... · 5.3 obiective...

Documents