Transcript Office of Science FY 2005 Internal Review Budget

U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
U.S. Department of Energy’s
Office of Science
Office of Science
Issues and Priorities
Briefing for EFCOG
Don Erbschloe
Chief Operating Officer
Office of Science
June 9, 2005
U.S. Department of Energy
Contents
Office of Science
• Chief Operating Officer
- Role
- Background
• Budget Priorities for FY06
• Major Issues
- Laboratory Business Plans
- M&O Contract Competition
- HSPD-12
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science OneSC
Organization
Office of Science
Director
Principal Deputy
Budget and
Planning
Major Systems
Assessment
Chief of Staff
Deputy for
Programs
Line
Chief Operating
Officer
Staff
Oak Ridge Office
Laboratory Policy
& Infrastructure
Virtual
SC
Integrated Support
Center
Program Direction &
Corporate Analysis
Advanced Scientific
Computing
Research
Fusion Energy
Sciences
Basic Energy
Sciences
High Energy
Physics
Biological &
Environmental
Research
Information
Management
Chicago Office
Ames
Site Office
Brookhaven
Site Office
Princeton
Site Office
Argonne
Site Office
Fermi
Site Office
Stanford
Site Office
Berkeley
Site Office
Pacific Northwest
Site Office
Thomas Jefferson
Site Office
Nuclear Physics
Workforce
Development for
Teachers & Scientists
U.S. Department of Energy
A Brief Personal Background
Office of Science
Operations
(Flying)
Academia
Research
Management
U.S. Department of Energy
What you can expect of me
Office of Science
• My philosophy/approach:
• Take care of your people
• Help them take care of the mission
• I will visit each site at least twice a year
• Alternate between programs and ops
• I will take the “big picture” perspective
• Decisions based on needs of entire SC
complex
U.S. Department of Energy
Personal Goals & Plans for
CY 2005
Office of Science
Lab Dirs’ Mtg &
Business Plan Mtgs
Site Mgrs’ Mtg
(Forrestal)l
Jan
Feb
Mar
Focus on SC & DOE offices
Start Human Cap Adv Group
Focus on SC sites & programs
Business Plan
Mtgs
May
Apr
Site Mgrs’ Mtg
(Chicago Area)
Jun
Focus on SC & DOE offices
And HCAG
Jul
Aug
Revisit SC sites—focus on ops
(Couple w/ Dr. Orbach’s visits, if possible)
Site Mgrs’ Mtg
Site Mgrs’ Mtg
(Germantown)
(TJ, OR, or Bay Area)
Sep
Site visits (cont.)
Oct
Nov
Focus on External Offices
Dec
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
What I learned during
my site visits
• Diverse and unique challenges at sites
•
•
•
•
•
•
Scientific thrusts
Geography
Community involvement/attention
Skill mix of staff
Condition of facilities
Relations with contractors
• Commonalities at sites
• High quality of staff
• Enthusiasm of researchers
• Good focus on SC mission
U.S. Department of Energy
What I’ve learned about the Labs
Office of Science
• Lab ops & upkeep consume major portion of SC budget
• Labs are truly “national treasures”
• We are unique in Fed system by providing these
large-scale scientific tools for nat’l and int’l research
• Labs serve 20,000 users per year
• The public trusts us to keep these labs running
U.S. Department of Energy
US Competitiveness
Office of Science
“Given the rising bar for competitiveness,
the United States needs to be in the lead or
among the leaders in every major field of
research to sustain its innovation
capabilities.”
U.S. Competitiveness 2001: Strengths, Vulnerabilities and Long
Term Priorities, Council on Competitiveness
U.S. Department of Energy
FY 2006 funding 1.6% below FY 2005 appropriations (excluding
Congressionally directed projects), 0.9% above the FY 2005
request
Office of Science
 A difficult budget year – however, the Office of Science continues to provide world
leadership in science, and for energy security.
Office of Science (excluding
Congressionally directed projects)
Appropriations History (92–05), Request (06)
FY 2006 constant
dollars in billions
 The budget forces us to make tough choices.
SC’s prioritization provides for a strong and
healthy future for U.S. science consistent
with the 20-year facilities outlook.
 The House Appropriations FY 2006 Energy
and Water Bill has passed the House – it
contains $3.67 billion in funding, $66.184
million over FY 2005 appropriated levels
 The Energy Authorization Bill, H.R. 6 has
passed the House. The Senate is moving a
companion bill through committee.
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
SSC
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Fiscal Year
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
Budget History
Office of Science (excluding
Congressionally directed projects)
Appropriations History (92–05), Request (06)
FY 2005 Appropriation, $3,600 Million
Universities & Colleges*
$564M, 15.7%
User Facilities
$1,496M 42%
Research $1,723M
48%
Facility Operations
$1,087M, 30.2%
National Laboratories
$843M, 23.4%
Facility
PACE/AIP/GPP
$410M, 11.4%
Safeguards and
Security $67M 1.9%
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
SSC
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Fiscal Year
FY 2006 Congressional Request, $3,463 Million
All Other
Research***
$316M, 8.8%
Other CE/GPP/GPE
$160M 4.4%
FY 2006 constant
dollars in billions
Office of Science
Program Direction
$153M 4.3%
Universities & Colleges
$538M, 15.5%
User Facilities
$1,469M 42%
Facility Operations
$1,142M, 33.0%
National Laboratories
$826M, 23.8%
FY 2004 Appropriation, $3,536 Million
Facility
PACE/AIP/GPP
$327M, 9.4%
Universities & Colleges*
$626M, 17.7%
User Facilities
$1,424M 40%
Facility Operations
$1,027M, 29.0%
Other CE/GPP/GPE
$171M 4.8%
Safeguards and
Security $57M 1.6%
Research $1,735M
49%
All Other
Research****
$207M, 6.0%
Other CE/GPP/GPE
$194M 5.6%
National Laboratories
$788M, 22.3%
Facility
PACE/AIP/GPP
$397M, 11.2%
Research $1,571M
45%
All Other
Research**
$321M, 9.1%
Program Direction
$150M 4.2%
Safeguards and
Security $67M 1.9%
Program Direction
$163M 4.7%
The area of each pie chart is proportional to the funding total for the year.
•When pending FY 2005 Congressionally-directed university grants are awarded (currently in “all
other” in FY 2005), FY 2004 and FY 2005 university funding will be approximately equal.
** Includes funding for SBIR/STTR, non-profits, other federal agencies, private institutions, and
Congressionally-directed projects other than university grants.
*** Includes funding for, non-profits, other federal agencies, private institutions, and all
Congressionally-directed projects.
**** Includes funding for non-profits, other federal agencies, and private institutions.
U.S. Department of Energy
The President's FY 2006 budget propels the
United States into leadership in the following
areas:
Office of Science
 Fusion -- ITER (fabrication begins) – will demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of creating and
controlling a sustained burning plasma to generate energy.
 Leadership Class Computing – 40 combined TeraFlops (TF) system performance at the end of CY 2005 (20 TF
“Red Storm” and 20 TF X1-E) – the most powerful computer for open science in the world.
 Spallation Neutron Source – SNS — world leading neutron source (by an order of magnitude) begins operation at
ORNL
 Nanotechnology – four of five Nanoscale Science Research Centers begin operations in FY 06.
 X-Ray Free Electron Laser -- start construction of Linac Coherent Light Source at SLAC – ushers in the field of
ultra-fast science
 High Energy Physics – initial operations of the Neutrinos at the Main Injector (NuMI) project at Fermilab -fundamental physics of neutrino masses and mixings. Large Hadron Collider at CERN (pre-operations, operation
and maintenance of detectors, and computing and software infrastructure)
 Nuclear Physics – continue to use the unique capabilities of the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility
(CEBAF) at Jefferson Laboratory and the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at Brookhaven National Laboratory
for studies of the internal quark-gluon structure of nucleons and the properties of hot, dense nuclear matter.
 Climate Change – research to address the role of clouds. Invest in scientific infrastructure to develop, test, and run
the climate change prediction models used in the international assessments of climate change. Continue study of the
global carbon cycle and basic research for biological sequestration of carbon in the biosphere.
 Genomics -- GTL will accelerate research underpinning the Department’s ability to develop microbe-based
biotechnology solutions for clean energy, carbon sequestration, and environmental remediation.
U.S. Department of Energy
Proposed Energy Security Plan
Office of Science
Based on the BESAC report Basic Research Needs to Assure a
Secure Energy Future and follow-on workshops, two of which
have already taken place, BES proposes 8-12 aggressive basic
research programs for potential solutions to the world’s
growing energy needs, including, for example:
 Hydrogen production, storage, and use.
 Solar energy conversion – solar electricity, solar fuels, solar thermal.
 Materials for extreme energy environments, e.g., materials robust enough
to withstand high temperatures, high radiation, and corrosive
environments.
 Nanostructured materials for improved efficiency (e.g., strong light-weight
materials) and functionality (e.g., white-light, solid-state lighting or energy
conversion and storage).
 The development and conversion of alternative domestic energy supplies
through the control of chemical pathways.
 Complex systems science for topics as widely varied as designer materials
with new functionalities and the modeling of complex energy systems.
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
Creating the Hydrogen Economy:
Major Challenges
 Enormous gap between present state-of-theart capabilities and requirements that will
allow hydrogen to be competitive with
today’s energy technologies
 production: 9M tons  40M tons (vehicles)
 storage: 4.4 MJ/L (10K psi gas)  9.72 MJ/L
 fuel cells: $3000/kW  $35/kW (gasoline engine)
 Enormous R&D efforts will be required
 Simple improvements of today’s technologies
will not meet requirements
 Technical barriers can be overcome only with
high risk/high payoff basic research
 Research is highly interdisciplinary, requiring
chemistry, materials science, physics, biology,
engineering, nanoscience, computational
science
“Of particular importance is the need
to understand the atomic and
molecular processes that occur at the
interface of hydrogen with materials in
order to develop new materials suitable
for use in a hydrogen economy. New
materials are needed for membranes,
catalysts, and fuel cell assemblies that
perform at much higher levels, at much
lower cost, and with much longer
lifetimes. Such breakthroughs will
require revolutionary, not evolutionary,
advances.”
U.S. Department of Energy
Purpose of the Business Plans
Office of Science
…The five year plans prepared by the major program offices and the comprehensive
five-year plan for the Department, should include business plans for each of these
laboratories. These business plans should include a clear statement of the primary
mission of each laboratory as it relates to each labs lead program office(s), a clear
statement of secondary missions to support other DOE program offices and other
Federal agencies, and a five–year plan identifying research, facilities, and resource
requirements necessary to fulfill these primary and secondary missions. …Beginning
with submission of the fiscal year 2007 budget request and every fiscal year
thereafter, the Department should submit to Congress detailed five-year budget
plans for all major program offices and a consolidated five-year budget plan for the
entire Department.
-- House Energy and Water Development Committee Report on FY05 Appropriations
Bill; agreed to in subsequent Conference Committee Report
The business plans will clarify the 5-year scientific future of each SC
laboratory, identify some of the big challenges these “jewels” face, and
commit ourselves to delivering the science and scientific infrastructure that
the Nation needs.
U.S. Department of Energy
Path Forward
Office of Science
• Outline questions designed to also provide
answers to Five Year Budget Plan and Ten-Year
Facility, Infrastructure and Site Plans.
• Four-hour briefing sessions with each
laboratory for them to present their views on
planning for their future are complete.
• SC to discuss and draft plans; finalize by Fall
2005.
U.S. Department of Energy
M&O Contract Competition
Office of Science
SC Acquisition Strategy Schedule
FY2004
SLAC
LBNL
FY2005
FY2006
Current Contract
FY2007
Section 301 Extension
Extend/Compete
SEB Process
5yr Award thru 01/31/10
4yr Extension thru 01/03/08
Extend/Compete Process 5yr Award/Extension thru 01/03/13
ANL
Current Contract
TJNAF
Current Contract
Section 301 Extension (2 yrs)
SEB Process
PPPL
FNAL
PNNL
5yr Award thru 09/30/11
Section 301 Extension (1 yr)
SEB Process
ORNL
5yr Award thru 12/31/12
Section 301 Extension (1yr)
BNL
AMES
FY2008
Current Contract
5yr Award thru 12/31/10
Section 301 Extension (2 yrs)
SEB Process
Current Contract
Extend/Compete Process
5yr Award thru 12/31/11
5yr Award/Extension thru 3/31/10
Current Contract
Extend/Compete
5yr Award thru 09/30/11
Current Contract
SEB Process
5yr Award thru 12/31/11
Current Contract
Extend/Compete
5yr Contract thru 9/30/12
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
Homeland Security Presidential Directive
(HSPD)-12
Agencies must issue personal identity &
validation (PIV) credentials to their employees
and contractors who require long-term access
to Federally controlled facilities or information
systems.
• Action
– develop implementation plan and submit to the Office of
Management and Budget by June 27, 2005.
– implement new credential system by October 27, 2005, for
new employees
– develop a plan to move existing employees to the new system
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
BACKGROUND
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Science
FY 2006 Congressional Budget Request
Office of Science
FY 2004
Comparable
Approp.
FY 2005
President's
Request
(dollars in thousands)
FY 2006 Request vs.
FY 2005
FY 2006
FY 2006 Request vs.
FY 2005
Comparable President's
FY 2005 Request
Appropriation
Approp.
Request
Science
Basic Energy Sciences…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
991,262
1,063,530
1,104,632
1,146,017
+82,487
+7.8% +41,385
+3.7%
Advanced Scientific Computing Research……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
196,795
204,340
232,468
207,055
+2,715
+1.3% -25,413
-10.9%
Biological & Environmental Research…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
624,048
501,590
581,912
455,688
-45,902
-9.2% -126,224
-21.7%
(Congressionally-directed projects)…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(136,798)
(——)
(79,608)
(——)
(——)
(——) (-79,608) (-100.0%)
(Core Biological and Environmental Research)……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(487,250)
(501,590)
(502,304)
(455,688)
(-45,902)
(-9.2%) (-46,616)
(-9.3%)
High Energy Physics…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
716,170
737,380
736,444
713,933
-23,447
-3.2% -22,511
-3.1%
Nuclear Physics………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
379,792
401,040
404,778
370,741
-30,299
-7.6% -34,037
-8.4%
Fusion Energy Sciences………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
255,859
264,110
273,903
290,550
+26,440 +10.0% +16,647
+6.1%
Science Laboratories Infrastructure……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
55,266
29,090
41,998
40,105
+11,015 +37.9%
-1,893
-4.5%
Science Program Direction……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
150,277
154,943
153,706
162,725
+7,782
+5.0% +9,019
+5.9%
Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
6,432
7,660
7,599
7,192
-468
-6.1%
-407
-5.4%
Small Business Innovation Research/Technology Transfer……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
114,915
——
——
——
——
——
——
——
Safeguards and Security………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
56,730
67,710
67,168
68,712
+1,002
+1.5% +1,544
+2.3%
Subtotal, Science………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3,547,546
3,431,393
3,604,608
3,462,718
+31,325
+0.9% -141,890
-3.9%
Use of prior year balances……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
-11,173
——
-5,062
——
——
—— +5,062
+100.0%
Total, Science…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
3,536,373
3,431,393
3,599,546
3,462,718
+31,325
+0.9% -136,828
-3.8%
(Total, excluding Congressionally-directed projects)………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
(3,399,575) (3,431,393) (3,519,938) (3,462,718) (+31,325) (+0.9%) (-57,220)
(-1.6%)
U.S. Department of Energy
Concerns and Criticisms
about the Current Appraisal Process
Office of Science
• Perception that the process is not sufficiently
objective and transparent—specifically that the
Site Offices’ performance is too closely tied to
the laboratory to be credible.
• Perception that the scores are consistently too
high, and sometimes are inconsistent with our
sense of the laboratory’s performance in a
given year.
• Existing incentives are insufficient and poorly
targeted to motivate the contractor toward
desired patterns of behavior.
U.S. Department of Energy
Goals for a
Revised Appraisal Process
Office of Science
• Increase comparability, consistency and
transparency in the appraisal process.
• Tailor incentives to motivate different types
of contractors (i.e., for-profit and not-forprofit.)
• Generate better information for
extend/compete decisions.
U.S. Department of Energy
Draft Recommendations:
Laboratory Appraisals
Office of Science
Changes to Measures
•
Reassess and revise the existing S&T measures; change the Operational
measures to include more specific measures targeted to the value that the
M&O contractor brings to the laboratory; adopt common set of measures
and scoring system across the SC laboratories to enhance clarity and
comparison across laboratories.
Changes to Process
•
Conduct evaluations at one annual meeting chaired by the Director to
encourage comparability and fairness across all laboratories, and ensure
the engagement of the Director.
•
Use resources from across SC to staff an operational systems review
function, modeled on the process SC uses to evaluate construction
projects (the Lehman reviews) or its scientific portfolios (Committee of
Visitors reviews) to test laboratory systems and build cross-SC
consistency in evaluation practices.
U.S. Department of Energy
Draft Recommendations, cont.
Office of Science
Changes to Reporting
•
Dispense with the adjectival scores in their entirety and rely on a
numerical four-point rating system; adopt a report card approach,
measuring the laboratory against a handful of criteria rather than a twopart and overall scoring system.
•
Make public an annual laboratory appraisal report that provides the scores
of all SC laboratories in one place, for example the SC website.
Changes to Performance Incentives and Overall Score Calculation
•
Use a variety of incentives tailored to each type of contractor, specifically
including increased use of award term and executive bonus pools.
•
Change the method for calculating the overall performance score and fee
from an “additive model” in which operational performance is a minority
percentage of the overall score, to a “gateway model” in which the S&T
score sets the maximum winnable fee within the total available fee defined
by the contract, and the Operational score determines how much fee is
actually awarded.
U.S. Department of Energy
Current Status of Appraisal
Process
Office of Science
• A new set of high-level measures (a binning
structure) has been developed by the team for
implementation in FY06.
• A new appraisal process and schedule has been
drafted by the team, and is being implemented
this year.
• Additional/alternative incentives include the
use of 1) a published report card, 2) awardterm, 3) changes to fee calculation
methodologies, and 4) various executive
reward systems.
U.S. Department of Energy
Level One (Report Card)
Measures
Office of Science
1.
Mission Accomplishment (Quality and Productivity of R&D)
2.
Construction and Operation of Research Facilities
3.
S&T Project/Program Management
4.
Contractor Leadership/Stewardship
5.
Environment Safety and Health
6.
Business Systems
7.
Facilities and Infrastructure
8.
Security and Emergency Management
Operations
Scores
S&T
Scores
U.S. Department of Energy
Business Plan Outline
Office of Science
I.
Current Business (30 minutes; 8 slides)
A. Provide a brief overview (three sentences, maximum) of your lab’s mission/major goals with eye to uniqueness of mission/major goals among SC Labs,
and other external labs. This should be a statement that Congress would understand.
B. Identify and discuss your laboratory’s core competencies; uniqueness of products or service; distinguishing characteristics. We are not looking for you
to be all-inclusive—the top six is about right. The papers you wrote last year should be a good starting point for this presentation/discussion. This should be
a summary designed to distinguish yourself from the other SC laboratories and intended for an external audience—you will have more time to discuss core
competencies later in the presentation.
C. Discuss where your laboratory is currently a world-leader in science and/or technology, e.g., with respect to key programs:
 Are you a world leader/parity with world leaders; who are they?
 Are you below the top 3 with enhancement underway/expected), or below top 3 and in decline in the field.)
II.
Major Initiatives and Strategies—Five-year Horizon (90 minutes; 14 slides)
A. Outline for us your major scientific initiatives/priorities/facilities over the next five years and what you expect from them in terms of major scientific
accomplishments (which don’t have to occur within the next 5 years.) Explain succinctly why DOE and the taxpayer should care about your success with this
venture.
B. For each initiative provide an estimate of the total funding that will be required to bring the project to fruition and an estimated date for completion (does
not have to fall within the 5-yr window of this plan.)
C. Plot these initiatives on a 2 x 2 matrix such as the one provided in Figure 1, attached, so that we can get a visual sense of the these efforts.
D. For each initiative, plot health of the core competencies that support it as shown in Figure 2.
E. For each initiative discuss how it exploits your current core competencies from Part I, or whether it requires the development of new core competencies.
Address the revenue/manpower/space that will be required to support each of these over the next five years, and how the lab plans to address these needs.
F. Also for each, discuss what the major hurdles will be, your strategy for tackling these, how lack of success will affect the laboratory, and what you plan to
do if unsuccessful.
III. Financial Outlook (15 minutes; 2 slides)
A. Give a brief overview of your laboratory’s financial position: current funding, projections, etc./ as you did last year. Include sources of WFO. We will
discuss and refine how best to present this information in upcoming conference call.
B. Identify any prospective events/wins/losses and whether and how these would affect the financial position of the laboratory.
C. Discuss how you plan to deal with these.
U.S. Department of Energy
Business Plan Outline, cont.
Office of Science
I.
The Laboratory in the Community (10 minutes; 3 slides )
A. Scientific Interactions – discuss whether and how other DOE laboratories are built into your plans for
success. Discuss the scientific relationships with other organizations that will be critical to your laboratory’s
success over the next five years.
B. Discuss status and trends of any noteworthy external multi-sector R&D collaborations involving
university or private corporation teams.
C. Community Relations, Technology Transfer, Education . Discuss, if necessary, any key community or
external issues facing your laboratory. We do not want an overview of ongoing programs or efforts.
II.
Non-scientific Facility, Infrastructure and Maintenance Needs (20 minutes; 3 slides)
A. What does the laboratory’s infrastructure look like in five years given current funding? What is
needed/planned over the next five years? Do you have any major outstanding issues that will come to a
head over the next five years?
B. What is your strategy to deal with/achieve this?
C. What is Plan B if you are not successful in getting your needs met by DOE?
III.
Management – Personnel (10 minutes; 2 slides)
A. Provide laboratory staffing numbers. Do you anticipate any skill mix difficulties in the next 5 years, and
if so what are they and what are your plans to deal with them?
B. Identify your 6-10 key managers, their roles, and any gaps.
C. Provide a brief overview of your labs diversity statistics and plans.
IV.
Management – Operational Issues (20 minutes; 4 slides)
A. What is your assessment of your overall security posture with respect to the ’03 and ’04 design basis
threats?
B. What vulnerabilities do you have with respect to cyber security?
C. Discuss safety at your laboratory (use standard ES&H slides) and any strategies for improvement.
D. Please give us a sense of how your laboratory’s culture is a help or a hindrance in meeting operational
goals of all kinds.
V.
Summary - Critical Risks for the Laboratory as a Whole (45 minutes; 4 slides)
A. Please identify the handful of critical success factors (scientific and/or operational) that will determine
the health and vitality of your laboratory as a whole over the next five years. Discuss what you see as the
major risks facing the lab.
B. Identify your priority needs to ensure the laboratory’s success – what must occur and what do you need
from us?
C. Outline your plan for satisfying these needs.
D. Discuss any specific plans the M&O contractor has for helping the laboratory achieve this vision.
E. Outline the alternatives—what is Plan B?