SCIENCE
OBJECTIVE: Advancement in the understanding of the fundamental nature of matter and energy.
MEASURE 1: QUALITY OF RESEARCH
Reviewers will evaluate the overall quality of the research performed. Depending on the nature of the program, reviewers will consider the following.
SCIENCE: Success in producing original, creative scientific output that advances fundamental science and opens important new areas of inquiry; success in achieving sustained progress and impact on the field; and recognition from the scientific community, including awards, peer-reviewed publications, citations, and invited talks.
TECHNOLOGY: Whether there is a solid technical base for the work; the intrinsic technical innovativeness of the research; the importance of contributions made to the scientific and engineering knowledge base underpinning the technology program; and recognition from the technical community.
MEASURE 2: RELEVANCE TO DOE MISSIONS AND NATIONAL NEEDS
Reviewers will consider whether the research fits within and advances the missions of DOE; contributions to U.S. leadership in the international scientific and technical communities; contributions to the goals and objectives of the strategic plans of DOE and other national programs; and the extent of productive interaction with other science and technology programs. Depending on the nature of the program, reviewers will consider the following.
SCIENCE: The program’s track record of success in making scientific discoveries of technological importance to DOE missions and U.S. industry; the degree of industrial interest in follow-on development of current research results; and the effective use of national research facilities that serve the needs of a wide variety of scientific users from industry, academia, and government laboratories.
TECHNOLOGY: The value of successfully developing precommercial technology, to DOE, other federal agencies, and the national economy; the extent to which expected benefits justify the program’s risks and costs; and, where appropriate, the degree of industrial interest, participation, and support.
MEASURE I.1.3: SUCCESS IN CONSTRUCTING AND OPERATING
RESEARCH FACILITIES
Reviewers will consider whether the construction and commissioning of new facilities is on time and within budget; whether facility performance specifications and objectives are achieved; the reliability and safety of operations; adherence to planned schedules; and the cost-effectiveness of maintenance and facility improvements.
Reviewers of user facilities will also consider whether the user access program is effective, efficient, and user-friendly; the quality of the proposal evaluation process; the strength and diversity of user participation; the productivity of the research supported, both in science and technology; and the level of satisfaction among user groups.
MEASURE 34: EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY OF RESEARCH PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
Reviewers will consider the quality of research plans; whether technical risks are adequately considered; whether use of personnel, facilities, and equipment is optimized; success in meeting budget projections and milestones; the effectiveness of decision-making in managing and redirecting projects; success in identifying and in avoiding or overcoming technical problems; the effectiveness with which technical results are communicated to maximize the value of the research results and to gain appropriate recognition for DOE and the Laboratory; effectiveness in developing, managing, and transferring to industry intellectual property and technical know-how associated with research discoveries; and, the degree to which customer and stakeholder expectations are consistently met.
ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND HEALTH
GOAL: Ensure the Safety and Health of the workforce and members of the public and the protection of the environment in all activities. The Contractor shall further ensure that management of ES&H functions and activities becomes an integral and visible part of the contractors work planning and execution process.
OBJECTIVE 1: Contractor will implement an effective Integrated Safety Management System the existence of a viable ISM system.
MEASURE 1.1: IMPLEMENT CORRECTIVE ACTIONS DEVELOPED IN RESPONSE TO THE DOE’S INTEGRATED SAFETY MANAGEMENT (ISM) REVIEW AT AMES LABORATORY IN NOVEMBER 1999.Progress against established program implementation milestones.
EXPECTATION 1.1:(Tailored to each site)
Performance Level Implement Milestone Date
Outstanding Implements all corrective actions and addresses 100% of identified Opportunities for Improvement
by scheduled completion dates.
Excellent Implements all corrective actions and addresses at
Least 85% of identified Opportunities for Improvement by scheduled completion dates.
Marginal
Good Implements all corrective actions no later than 30 days of scheduled completion and addresses at least 75% of identified Opportunities for Improvement by scheduled completion dates.
Marginal Implements all corrective actions no later than 45 days of scheduled completion and addresses at least 65% of identified Opportunities for Improvement by scheduled completion dates.
Unsatisfactory Corrective actions not implemented within 45 days of scheduled completion or addresses less than 65% of identified Opportunities for Improvement by scheduled completion dates.
WEIGHT: 7%
OBJECTIVE 2: Measurement of the environmental performance and awareness of ongoing research activities. These activities include, but not limited to, waste operations, general maintenance programs and the general conduct of operations.
MEASURE 2.1: THIS PERFORMANCE INDICATOR (PI) WILL BE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY RELATED INCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED DURING THE FISCAL YEAR AND THE CORRESPONDING SEVERITY OF EACH INCIDENT.
PI = (I1 x WFn) + (I2 x WFn) + (I3 x WFn) + etc.
Where:
IN = one incident. Incidents would include spills or releases of hazardous, radioactive and/or regulated substances; improperly packaged, stored or shipped hazardous, radioactive and/or regulated waste.
WFn = weighing factor (severity) of one incident is as follows:
WF = 1: Minor Incident, Resulting in greater than $5,000.00 of costs, but less than $20,00.00 of costs of materials, labor, services, G&A, etc. to resolve spills or releases that are not considered reportable; or incidents that pose no threat to worker safety.
WF = 2: Moderate Incident, Resulting in more than $20,000 of costs to resolve; spills or releases that are reportable; an environmental incident reported as "off-normal" in ORPS; or an incident that has posed a potential threat to worker safety;
WF = 5: Major Incident, Resulting in more than $100,000 of costs to resolve; reportable spills or releases that have migrated off-site; an environmental incident that posed a clear and direct threat to worker safety; or an environmental incident that posed a potential or direct threat to public safety
EXPECTATION 2.1:
Performance Level Performance Indicator
Outstanding 0 - 1
Excellent 2
Good 4
Marginal 5
Unsatisfactory Greater than 5
WEIGHT: 3%
OBJECTIVE 3: Empowerment and training of workers and implementation of other necessary actions to prevent serious work-related injuries and fatalities and to minimize exposures to radiation.
MEASURE 3.1: Prevent fatalities, injuries, and incidents of illness.
INJURY COST INDEX DURING FISCAL YEAR, INCLUDING BOTH THE CONTRACTOR’S STAFF AND SUBCONTRACTORS. (NOTE: VALUES MAY DIFFER FROM CALENDAR YEAR INJURY COST INDEX VALUES.)
Cost Index = 100(1,000,000 D + 500,000 T + 2,000 LWC +
1,000 WDL + 400 WDLR + 2,000 NFC) divided by total hours worked.
Where:
D is the number of fatalities.
T is the number of permanent transfers or terminations due to occupational
illness or injury.
LWC is the number of lost workday cases.
WDL is the number of days away from work.
WDLR is the number of restricted duty days.
NFC is the number of non-fatal cases without days away from work
or restricted workdays
EXPECTATION 3.1:
Performance Level Injury Cost Index
Outstanding <5.9
Excellent 5.9 — 8.2
Good 8.3 - 15.2
Marginal 15.3 — 17.6
Unsatisfactory >17.6
WEIGHT: 5%
MEASURES 3.2: Minimize serious injuries and illnesses experienced in the workplace. Contractor should demonstrate measured improvement from previous performance periods.
LOST WORKDAY CASE RATE (LWCR) = THE NUMBER OF LOST WORKDAY CASES X 200,000 (100 EMPLOYEES WORKING 40 HOURS PER WEEK FOR 50 WEEKS PER YEAR)/THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED.
EXPECTATION 3.2:
Performance Level Lost Workdays
Outstanding <1.1
Excellent 1.1 — 1.7
Good 1.7 - 1.9
Marginal 1.9 — 2.1
Unsatisfactory >2.1
WEIGHT: 5%
MEASURE I.3.5: Total effective dose equivalent (TEDE) received by personnel measured in person-rem. This measure includes all individuals who have been issued dosimeters.
EXPECTATION I.3.5:
Performance Level Person-REM
Outstanding
Excellent
Good
Marginal
GOAL: Ensure that facilities, facility improvements, or other projects are managed in an effective manner to maximize their value to DOE. Different types of projects are assessed and these are categorized by their funding source and/or end purpose.
1)
2)
3) Site Specific Projects/Activities to be listed
4)
5)
OBJECTIVE: Projects shall be managed efficiently and within DOE approved baselines.
Approved projects are to be completed on time, within budget, and meet baseline scope requirements. Uncosted carryovers are minimized.
MEASURE I.4.1: Project Schedule Compliance
Number of Milestones Completed on Time
Project Schedule
Compliance= --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Milestones Scheduled for Completion
EXPECTATION I.4.1
Performance Level Metrics
Outstanding 1.05 and above
Excellent 0.91 to 1.04
Good 0.83 to 0.90
Marginal 0.77 to 0.82
MEASURE I.4.2: Project Cost Compliance
Sum of Budgeted Cost of Work Performed
Cost Compliance= ----------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of Actual Costs of Work Performed
EXPECTATION I.4.2
Performance Level Metrics
Outstanding Level 1.05 and above
Excellent 0.91 to 1.04
Good 0.83 to 0.90
Marginal 0.77 to 0.82
MEASURE 3.3: WASTE MINIMIZATION AND POLLUTION PREVENTION PERFORMANCE. ACHIEVE THE WASTE MINIMIZATION/POLLUTION PREVENTION GOALS DELINEATED IN THE AMES LABORATORY POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM PLAN.
The overall U.S. Department of Energy’s pollution prevention performance
goals include the following with the base period of _______:
1. Reduce total releases and offsite transfers to toxic chemicals by 50 percent.
Quantities of routine hazardous waste, not including radioactive, mixed or sanitary waste, generated from existing scientific program research will decrease on an annual basis.
Metric is based on a three year rolling average of total RCRA waste that is generated in a calendar year.
Previous year rolling average —
Percent = Current year rolling average x 100
Previous year rolling average
|
Calendar Years |
Rolling Average (kg) |
Percent Decrease |
|
94-96 |
4142 |
1.5 |
|
95-97 |
3640 |
12.1 |
|
96-98 |
3258 |
10.5 |
|
97-99 |
EXPECTATION 3.3:
Performance Level Number of Goals Achieved
Outstanding <6% 7
Excellent 4 — 6%
6
Good 2 — 3%5
Marginal 0 — 1%
Marginal 4
UUnsatisfactory No Reduction achieved
WEIGHT: 5%
LEADERSHIP TBD
WEIGHT: 5%