Anonymously contributed:
I am sorry for the delay, contributor; your suggestion somehow went to the BLOG's SPAM box and I noticed just today.
Lab earns excellent marks for FY11 performance
LLNL Newsline
12/16/2011
On Dec. 6, the Livermore Site Office (LSO) released its Performance Evaluation Report with its assessment of our Laboratory's performance for fiscal year 2011.
I am pleased to report that the Laboratory earned ratings of "outstanding" in Mission and "very good" in both Operations and Institutional Management. In addition, for the third consecutive year, the Laboratory earned the award term incentive for contract extension.
The "excellent" rating for Mission reflected LLNL's numerous achievements in applying science and technology to meet critical national security needs. LSO noted that the Laboratory "met or exceeded nearly all of the performance targets, evaluation criteria, and milestones" associated with program objectives and "nearly all of the performance measures were also rated excellent." Among the accomplishments cited by LSO in support of this top rating were stockpile assessment, surveillance and life-extension activities for multiple warheads; increased rigorous peer reviews and data exchanges with Los Alamos weapons scientists; successful execution of a series of NIF shots that resolved a key issue about nuclear weapon performance and other shots for the ignition campaign, high-energy-density science and other national security missions; preparations for the delivery of Sequoia; leadership in the development of the first national strategic plan for nuclear forensics and attribution; and the development of numerous new technologies as evidenced by increased patent and licensing activity.
The rating of "very good" for Operations recognized the success of Laboratory efforts to strengthen its operational and infrastructure functions. LSO observed that LLNL "maintained safe, environmentally sound, and secure operations in an efficient manner." Accomplishments cited in support of this rating included nearly 100 percent availability of mission-critical facilities; on-schedule progress in transferring category 1 and 2 special nuclear material to other sites; development of a post-deinventory security plan; achievement of all environmental restoration regulatory milestones at the main LLNL site and Site 300; major focus on and improvements in employee health and safety programs; and the conduct of comprehensive self-assessments of operational functions to self-identify and correct issues.
The "very good" rating for Institutional Management reflected LLNL's performance in business operations and governance and the fact that it "met or exceeded many of the performance targets and evaluation criteria." In support of this rating, LSO cited the establishment of the Office of Strategic Outcomes, Interagency Business Office, and Interagency Mission Opportunities Office; the Laboratory's 99.97 accountability rate for its annual property inventory; improvements to the employee recruitment process and training systems; and successful completion of 17 business system projects.
In addition, the Laboratory achieved all but two of the 21 "stretch" incentive targets (11 in Mission, four in Operations, and four in Institutional Management), and all three of the multi-site targets (which focused on stockpile stewardship, complex transformation and stockpile science).
All in all, I think this assessment accurately reflects our performance for FY11. Not only does it highlight our key successes and achievements, but it identifies various issues and concerns that we need to, and will, address going forward. So, please accept my thanks for an exceptional year, and join me in our continuing effort to achieve simultaneous excellence in mission, operations and management.
-- Parney Albright
16 comments:
All due respect Parney but we got one A and two B's. Is that acceptable for the "World Class" Institution that we claim we are? Also, was it an outstanding or excellent in mission? First you indicate it was outstanding, then downgrade to excellent. What is it? If an outstanding was possible, then we got one B and two C's. Either way, you are waffling.
The title "Lab Earns Excellent Marks for FY11 Performance" is highly misleading. I hope that was not the actual title of Parney's article because the mark's were not "Excellent" maybe "Very Good" at best. It's very apparent that Parney been around the D.C. "beltway" a few times. It shows....
It is hard to quickly find a definition of the NNSA's grading scale. The following from an NNSA document re: the Nevada site award fee plan offers the following definitions for the "adjectival rating":
EXCELLENT (Award-Fee Pool Available to be Earned: 91%-100% which corresponds to a point score range of 91 - 100): Contractor has exceeded almost all of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.
VERY GOOD (Award-Fee Pool Available to be Earned: 76%-90% which corresponds to a point score range of 76 - 90): Contractor has exceeded many of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.
GOOD (Award-Fee Pool Available to be Earned: 51%-75% which corresponds to a point score range of 51 - 75): Contractor has exceeded some of the significant award-fee criteria and has met overall cost, schedule and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.
SATISFACTORY (Award-Fee Pool Available to be Earned: the lesser of 30% of the award fee pool or 3% of the award fee allocation base which corresponds to a point score range of 30 – 50): Contractor has met overall cost, schedule and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.
UNSATISFACTORY (Award-Fee Pool Available to be Earned: 0% which corresponds to a point score range of less than 30): Contractor has failed to meet overall cost, schedule and technical performance requirements of the contract in the aggregate as defined and measured against the criteria in the award fee plan for the award fee evaluation period.
So if we can make the assumption that this is uniform across NNSA sites, then the article's initial use of "outstanding" for mission was not correct but subsequent "excellent" was. As the first comment said, we got one A and two Bs. Given how we choose to invest our internal resources, "Very Good" for business operations seems about right. The point is, it didn't get in the way of being excellent on mission.
It would be interesting to know what fractions of the award fee are associated with each category.
Ahh, page 10 of this FY12
Performance Evaluation Plan document shows the breakdown between Program, Operations and Institutional components. Program is the largest of the three, but smaller than the sum of Operations and Institutional. The "very good" awards are decremented ten percent from the "excellent" awards.
lets not forget that LLNS aka rechtel writes its own evaluations.
thats why llnl recieved such high
marks,this in turn helps ulm maitain thier big bonuses.
It would be interesting to know what fractions of the award fee are associated with each category.
December 26, 2011 4:34 PM
Don't be surprised to see a new yacht "Monkey Business II" christened in the South Pacific. Follow the money, follow the money....
How the hell can LLNL employees earn an excellent mark with performance bonses for their employer while under a freeking salary freeze?
What dumb shits.
Why will management give you anything if you are foolish enough to accept this.
This is truly discouraging.
The correct answer is, "Oh sorry boss, the bonuses started at 70% and we earned 69% again. Gee, I guess we are in the same boat." "I suspect we will get over the hump when employee incentives are renewed."
Yep, two years of salary freezes should logically lead to two years of reduced performance.
Any other result and a smart manager will keep the money for himself.
Make 'em pay. This ain't a charity.
How the hell can LLNL employees earn an excellent mark with performance bon[u]ses for their employer while under a freeking salary freeze?
Pride? We're not interested in only a "satisfactory" performance?
LLNL does have an employee bonus program. In FY11, based on the FY10 performance rating, all employees got a bonus = 1.5% of they base salary. Not huge, but at least something considering the salary freeze. I assume based on this new rating we will get a similar bonus this year.
DECEMBER 28 2011 7:21 AM
The only groupe that will recevie bonuses is the skill crafts represented by UPTE. It is in thier contract to recieve 1.5% of the base pay on 1-1-12!! the rest of the lab may receive bonuses based on the personal performance
appraisels and the % could be from .5 to 1.5 %. the bonus would be paid out in march of 2012.
...the rest of the lab may receive bonuses based on the personal performance apprais[a]ls...
The "lab-wide" strategic performance bonus, when administered last year, was a uniform 1.5% across the un-represented population and was in no way a function of performance appraisal. Hard to foresee it being done any differently this year.
No complaint with UPTE folks getting theirs a few months earlier. Happy new year.
The for-profit LLCs running the labs are set up so that the really big bonuses (+20%) go to the upper management team when the annual NNSA metrics are met.
The rest of the staff who work hard to make these metrics a reality only get the crumbs (1.5% or less).
PBIs, Baby!
"leadership in the development of the first national strategic plan for nuclear forensics and attribution" is an inherently governmental function that should only be performed by Federal employees.
So how does everyone like Parney now? The last time I heard him speak he literally put me to sleep. No charisma, no vision, no hope! Another stellar LANS decision!
Post a Comment