Management System Owner: Head, Office of Integrated Planning and Performance Management (IPPM)
Revision and Date: Revision 1.1 - June 21, 2018
The Planning and Performance Management System encompasses the organization, roles and responsibilities, key supporting processes, performance metrics and supporting information systems and documentation to assure laboratory management that laboratory multi-year resource and facility planning and performance supports the Laboratory mission, science and management and operations goals, objectives and expectations of the Department of Energy Office of Science (DOE-SC), the DOE Office of High Energy Physics (OHEP), and the HEP research community.
Table of Roles and Responsibilities
M&0 Contract (DOE Prime Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359 for the Management and Operation of the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)).
Other DOE orders and Instructions
FRA Contract Clause Mapping to Management Systems
The Planning and Performance Management System is maintained by the Head, Office of Integrated Planning and Performance Management and overseen by the Chief Operating Officer. The Management System is based on a annual planning calendar/framework of integrated three-year plans and information that permits quick response to changing planning assumptions, such as in the federal budget and DOE program planning, and effective performance evaluation. The system consists of four key support processes that interrelate to support laboratory-level strategic goals and objectives with integrated information and data in annual budgets, staff and facilities/infrastructure plans and that can respond to changes as they might arise.
The four key support processes establish a structured approach to: identifying laboratory strategic mission goals and supporting objectives; supporting these with three-year integrated budget, staff and facilities resource plans; planning, monitoring, assessing and addressing changes in the Laboratory institutional risk profile; and conducting effective management oversight of construction projects, key research programs and DOE annual performance measurement Objectives and Notable Outcomes.
This process captures and communicates through a Laboratory Agenda, the top-management goals and objectives that support the Laboratory mission and meet the expectations of the OHEP and the HEP scientific community. (CAS M-3 Process 4.1 Strategic Planning Goal Setting 2014-06-12)
This process annually aligns Laboratory three-year budget plans with supporting staff and facilities/infrastructure needs, identifies shortfalls/gaps for management prioritization and decisions. Where critical skills shortfalls are identified, this process provides the time-phased skill needs to the Human Resources Management System for optimization of skill acquisition (through hiring or contracting) or development of existing staff. (CAS M-3 Process 4.2 Integrated Resource Planning (Rev 2014-09-18)
This process provides methods for Laboratory management to develop, evaluate, control and monitor the performance of Laboratory managers directing construction projects, major research programs and annual DOE PEMP Objectives and Notable Outcomes. (CAS M-3 Process 4.3 Performance Oversight, Evaluation and Measurement 2014-06-12)
This process provides methods and responsibilities involved with identifying, evaluating and mitigating significant institutional risks to: (1) meeting the Laboratory mission and major performance objectives (such as project Critical Decisions and PEMP Objectives/Notable Outcomes); and (2) the integrity and control of laboratory management systems (such as the Contractor Assurance System (CAS) systems). (CAS M-3 Process 4.4 Integrated Risk Management 2014-06-12)
The relationships among the key support processes with the Performance Planning Management System are shown in the System Model (Figure 4-1).
Figure 4.1 Performance Planning System Model
This section formally captures the extension of this management system to Fermilab activities and roles at SURF. (Add appropriate text below and change font back to black when finished)
In this new section, please make appropriate declarations about equivalencies AND note areas where the management system would operate differently. Importantly, also note how your M.S. will provide assurances about performance at SURF (e.g., visits, inspections, monthly reports, SDSD personnel oversight, and so on).
ES&H has completed an analysis that generated a graphic identifying what requirements where for what work. A reference to this analysis would be appropriate to include in this section. In another example, the Legal Management System might observe formally that the Prime Contract applies to all legal matters identically to FRA-sponsored work in South Dakota as it does in Batavia and the same points of contact should be used.