FY 2009 

Government Performance 

Evaluation of Iowa State University 

for the Management and Operations 

of the Ames Laboratory 

i 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

I. OVERALL SUMMARY RATING/FEE 

Performance-Based Score and Adjectival Rating: 

The basis for the evaluation of Iowa State University management and operations of the Ames 

Laboratory during FY 2009 centered on the Objectives found within the following Performance 

Goals: 

1.0 Provide for Efficient and Effective Mission Accomplishment (Quality, Productivity, 

Leadership, & Timeliness of Research and Development) 

2.0 Provide for Efficient and Effective Design, Fabrication, Construction and Operations of 

Research Facilities 

3.0 Provide Effective and Efficient Science and Technology Research Project/Program 

Management 

4.0 Provide Sound and Competent Leadership and Stewardship of the Laboratory 

5.0 Sustain Excellence and Enhance Effectiveness of Integrated Safety, Health, and 

Environmental Protection 

6.0 Deliver Efficient, Effective, and Responsive Business Systems and Resources that Enable the 

Successful Achievement of the Laboratory Mission(s) 

7.0 Sustain Excellence in Operating, Maintaining, and Renewing the Facility and Infrastructure 

Portfolio to Meet Laboratory Needs 

8.0 Sustain and Enhance the Effectiveness of Integrated Safeguards and Security Management 

(ISSM) and Emergency Management Systems 

Each Performance Goal was composed of two or more weighted Objectives and most Objectives 

had a set of performance measures, which assisted in determining the Contractor’s overall 

performance in meeting that Objective. Each of the performance measures identified significant 

activities, requirements, and/or milestones important to the success of the corresponding 

Objective. The following describes the methodology utilized in determining the Contractor 

performance rating. 

Each Objective within a Goal was assigned a numerical score by the evaluating office. Each 

evaluation measured the degree of effectiveness and performance of the Contractor in meeting the 

Objective and was based on the Contractor’s success in meeting the set of Performance 

Measures/Targets identified for each Objective as well as other performance information 

available to the evaluating office from other sources to include, but not limited to, the 

Contractor’s self-evaluation report, operational awareness (daily oversight) activities; “For 

Cause” reviews (if any); other outside agency reviews (OIG, GAO, DCAA, etc.), and the annual 

2-week review (if needed). If no performance measures/targets were utilized the description of 

the general expectations for the success of the objective was utilized as the baseline of the 

effectiveness and performance of the Contractor in meeting the corresponding Objective and in 

determining the score assigned. The Goal score was then computed by multiplying the numerical 

score by the weight of each Objective within a Goal. These values were then added together to 

develop an overall score for each Goal. This score was then compared to Table A to determine 

 1 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

the overall grade for each Goal. A set of tables is provided at the end of each Performance Goal 

section of this document to assist in the calculation of Objective scores to the Goal score. The 

raw score (rounded to the nearest hundredth) from each calculation was carried through to the 

next stage of the calculation process. The raw score for Science and Technology and 

Management and Operations was rounded to the nearest tenth of a point for utilization in 

determining fee as discussed below. A standard rounding convention of x.44 and less rounds 

down to the nearest tenth (here, x.4), while x.45 and greater rounds up to the nearest tenth (here, 

x.50).

Final 

Grade A+ A A- B+ B B- C+ C C- D F 

Total 

Score 

4.3-

4.1 

4.0-

3.8 

3.7-

3.5 

3.4-

3.1 

3.0-

2.8 

2.7-

2.5 

2.4-

2.1 

2.0-

1.8 

1.7-

1.1 1.0-0.8 0.7-0 

Table A. FY 2009 Contractor Letter Grade Scale 

Based on the evaluation of Iowa State University performance against the Goals and Objectives contained 

within the FY 2009 Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (PEMP) the scores and corresponding 

grades awarded for each are provided within Table B below. Specific information regarding the 

Contractor’s performance in meeting each of the Goals and their corresponding Objectives is provided 

within Section II of this report. 

S&T Performance Goal Numerical 

Score 

Letter 

Grade Weight Weighted Score 

Total 

Score 

1.0 Mission Accomplishment 3.4 B+ 65% 2.2 

2.0 Design, Fabrication, Construction 

 and Operations of Facilities N/A N/A 

3.0 Science and Technology Research 

 Project/Program Management 3.7 A- 35% 1.3 

Total Score 3.5 

M&O Performance Goal Numerical 

Score 

Letter 

Grade Weight Weighted Score 

Total 

Score 

4.0 Leadership and Stewardship of 

 the Laboratory 3.3 B+ 20% .66 

5.0 Integrated Safety, Health, and 

 Environmental Protection 3.4 B+ 30% 1.02 

6.0 Business Systems 3.4 B+ 20% .68 

7.0 Operating, Maintaining, and 

 Renewing Facility and 

 Infrastructure Portfolio 

3.5 A- 20% .70 

8.0 Integrated Safeguards and 

 Security Management and 

 Emergency Management Systems 

3.4 B+ 10% .34 

Total Score 3.4 

Table B. FY 2009 Contractor Evaluation Score Calculation 

 2 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

Performance-Based Fee Earned: 

Utilizing Table B, above, the scores for each of the Science and Technology (S&T) Goals and Management 

and Operations (M&O) Goals were multiplied by the weight assigned and these were summed to provide 

an overall score for each. The percentage of the available performance-based fee that was earned by the 

Contractor was determined based on the overall weighted score for the S&T Goals (see Table B.) and then 

compared to Table C. below. The overall numerical score of the M&O Goals from Table B. was then 

utilized to determine the final fee multiplier (see Table C.), which was utilized to determine the overall 

amount of performance-based fee earned for FY 2009 as calculated within Table D. Performance Fee 

available this period is $335,000. Based on the overall performance within the S&T and M&O Goals the 

Contractor is awarded $314,900 in performance based fee for FY 2009. 

Overall Weighted Score 

from Table A. 

Percent S&T 

Fee Earned 

M&O Fee 

Multiplier 

4.3 

4.2 

4.1 

100% 100% 

4.0 

3.9 

3.8 

97% 100% 

3.7 

3.6 

3.5 

94% 100% 

3.4 

3.3 

3.2 

3.1 

91% 100% 

3.0 

2.9 

2.8 

88% 95% 

2.7 

2.6 

2.5 

85% 90% 

2.4 

2.3 

2.2 

2.1 

75% 85% 

2.0 

1.9 

1.8 

50% 75% 

1.7 

1.6 

1.5 

1.4 

1.3 

1.2 

1.1 

0% 60% 

1.0 to 0.8 0% 0% 

0.7 to 0.0 0% 0% 

Table C. - Performance-Based Fee Earned Scale 

 3 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

2009 Overall Fee Determination 

Percent S&T Fee Earned from Table C. 94% 

M&O Fee Multiplier from Table C. 100% 

Overall Earned Performance-Based Fee $314,900 

Table D. – Final Percentage of Performance-Based 

Fee Earned Determination 

 4 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

II. PERFORMANCE GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND MEASURES/TARGETS 

Goal 1.0: Provide for Efficient and Effective Mission Accomplishment (Quality, 

 Productivity, Leadership, & Timeliness of Research and Development)

This Goal measures the degree to which the Contractor produces high-quality, original, and 

creative results that advance science and technology; demonstrates sustained scientific progress 

and impact; receives appropriate external recognition of accomplishments; and contributes to 

overall research and development goals of the Department and its customers. The weight of this 

Goal is 65%. 

The overall score assigned to Goal 1 is 3.4, which equates to a grade of a high B+. The two 

evaluating program offices sponsoring research at Ames Laboratory are: Office of Basic 

Energy Sciences (BES); and Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists 

(WDTS). BES is the largest sponsor, providing 98.8% of the total funding. 

The following Goal 1 summary input was provided by each Program Office:

BES – Weighted Score: 3.4 / B+

Ongoing programs in catalysis science, separations and analysis, and chemical physics were 

productive and well recognized nationally and internationally. A review of materials 

sciences programs highlighted the unique strength of the laboratory in materials 

preparation and crystal growth, while noting issues with specific programs. 

 

• The program, Extraordinary Responsive Magnetic Rare Earth Materials, reviewed 

very well with recognition as world-class and the team as world-leading. Other 

programs reviewed well, while two programs were terminated as reviewers felt that 

the programs were not sufficiently distinguished compared to similar work around 

the world. 

 

• The senior principal investigators of programs supported by the BES Chemical 

Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences Division have national and international 

recognition that resulted in strong productivity and significant publications in FY 

2009. 

 

• Ames Laboratory was not awarded any of the 46 Energy Frontier Research Centers 

(EFRCs) or 95 Single-Investigator and Small-Group Research (SISGR) projects 

awarded by BES in FY2009. 

WDTS – Weighted Score: 3.4 / B+

• Ames uses the WDTS program to provide a high quality science education 

experience and places research interns and educations where they are capable of 

assisting the PIs through research contribution. 

• Ames considers WDTS program as potential pipeline activities where participants 

are requires to become deeply immersed in their own science experience and 

become fully aware of the DOE research enterprise and anticipate other 

opportunities and career choices with DOE. 

 5 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

• Ames ensures that all participants have the resources and individual attention 

required to feel successful in the research experience and are able to communicate 

research accomplishments through abstracts, posters and or full length papers. 

 

Ames has focused attention in positioning the undergraduates and as valued part of lab. 

They encourage participants to inquiry about research among many divisions, to attending 

a wide variety of lectures and workshops and to be an active communicator about their 

research and how it fits into a larger research effort.

1.1 Science and Technology Results Provide Meaningful Impact on the Field 

The following input for Objective 1.1 was provided by each Program Office: 

BES – Score/Grade: 3.4/ B+

Ongoing programs supported by the BES Chemical Sciences, Geosciences, and Biosciences 

(CSGB) Division in catalysis science, separations and analysis, and chemical physics were 

not reviewed in FY 2009; they continue to be productive and well recognized nationally and 

internationally. 

 

Five of the ongoing programs supported by the BES Materials Sciences and Engineering 

(MSE) Division were reviewed in FY 2009 following a mail review and restructuring in FY 

2007. Two programs were terminated as a consequence of the review; in both cases the 

reviewers felt that the programs were not sufficiently distinguished compared to similar 

work around the world. The program, Extraordinary Responsive Magnetic Rare Earth 

Materials, reviewed very well with recognition as world-class and the team as worldleading. Overall, the review participants were impressed with the experimental facilities at 

Ames Laboratory, particularly in the area of materials preparation. Reviewers praised the 

unique strength of the laboratory in materials preparation and crystal growth and the 

strong component of academic activity in training and educating young scientists. The 

laboratory responded appropriately to reviewer comments on the remaining two programs. 

WDTS – Score/Grade: 3.4/ B+

The education office continues to pursue raising the visibility of the WDTS program 

throughout the laboratory by ensuring that all participants meet the required deliverable of 

quality abstracts of their research and making poster presentations for laboratory and 

external audiences. 

WDTS interns are encouraged to present their research back at their home institution and 

provide copies of their abstracts to their college/university department chair. 

1.2 Provide Quality Leadership in Science and Technology 

The following input for Objective 1.2 was provided by each Program Office: 

 6 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

BES – Score/Grade: 3.3/ B+

 

The senior principal investigators of programs supported by the BES CSGB Division have 

national and international recognition that resulted in strong productivity and significant 

publications in FY 2009. 

 

Many of the senior principal investigators of programs supported by the BES MSE Division 

had national, and in some cases, international recognition for excellence. However, the loss 

of the senior scientific leadership is a serious concern. 

 

Ames Laboratory was one of the few DOE laboratories not to be awarded any of the 46 

Energy Frontier Research Centers (EFRCs) or 95 Single-Investigator and Small-Group 

Research (SISGR) projects awarded by BES in FY 2009.

WDTS – Score/Grade: 3.4/ B+

 

The education office ensures a quality intern research experience in the laboratories’ core 

competencies by recruiting participants within those research areas and closely monitoring 

progress to be sure that they are capable and confident to contribute to the research. 

1.3 Provide and sustain Science and Technology Outputs that Advance Program Objectives and 

Goals 

The following input for Objective 1.3 was provided by each Program Office: 

BES – Score/Grade: 3.4/ B+

Overall, the quantity and quality of research outputs in peer-reviewed journals for the 

programs supported by the BES CSGB Division were acceptable. 

 

Though two programs at the laboratory were recently terminated, the output of the 

remaining programs supported by the BES MSE Division is very good. The laboratory’s 

materials preparation group continues to supply researchers worldwide with quality 

materials. 

WDTS – Score/Grade: 3.4/ B+

The education office recruits well qualified interns and educators. They have well validated 

review and selection process with a goal of matching applicant and mentor in a research 

experience where the need of both can be met. Laboratory research mentors are involved in 

the selection process where both the PI and the division director must agree a potential 

intern is deserving and capable to work in the division. 

1.4 Provide for Effective Delivery of Science and Technology 

The following input for Objective 1.4 was provided by each Program Office: 

 7 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

BES – Score/Grade: 3.4/B+

BES CSGB Division supported research programs were effective in meeting scientific 

objectives and milestones. The programs were responsive to requests from BES for 

information and research highlights. 

 

BES MSE Division supported research projects were effective in meeting scientific 

objectives and milestones. The projects were responsive to requests from BES for 

information and research highlights. 

WDTS - Score/Grade: 3.5/ AThe education office significantly improves the management of the WDTS programs from 

year to year by disciplined program planning, focusing on incorporating lessons learned, 

and collaborating with other science education offices in employing best practices. 

Science Program Office Letter 

Grade 

Numerical 

Score 

Weight Weighted 

Score 

Overall 

Score 

Office of Basic Energy Sciences 

1.1 Impact B+ 3.4 50% 1.7 

1.2 Leadership B+ 3.3 20% .66 

1.3 Output B+ 3.4 15% .51 

1.4 Delivery B+ 3.4 15% .51 

Overall BES Total 3.38 

Office of Workforce Development for 

Teachers and Scientists

1.1 Impact B+ 3.4 25% .85 

1.2 Leadership B+ 3.4 30% 1.02 

1.3 Output B+ 3.4 30% 1.02 

1.4 Delivery A- 3.5 15% .53 

Overall WDTS Total 3.42 

Table 1.1 – SC Program Office Performance Goal 1.0 Score Development

Science Program Office Letter 

Grade 

Numerical 

Score 

Funding 

Weight 

(BA) 

Weighted 

Score 

Overall 

Weighted 

Score 

Office of Basic Energy Sciences B+ 3.38 98.8% 3.34 

Office of Workforce Development for 

Teachers and Scientists B+ 3.42 1.2% .04 

Performance Goal 1.0 Total 3.4 

Table 1.2 – SC Program Office Overall Performance Goal 1.0 Score Development 

 8 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

Goal 2.0: Provide for Efficient and Effective Design, Fabrication, Construction and

 Operations of Facilities

Note: GOAL 2.0 AND CORRESPONDING OBJECTIVES WERE NOT WEIGHTED OR 

ASSESSED FOR THE FY 2009 RATING PERIOD. 

Goal 3: Provide Effective and Efficient Science and Technology Research Project/

 Program Management

This goal measures the degree to which the Contractor provides effective program vision and 

leadership; strategic planning and development of initiatives; recruits and retains a quality 

scientific workforce; and provides outstanding research processes, which improve research 

productivity. The weight of this Goal is 33%. 

The overall score assigned to Goal 3 is 3.7, which equates to a grade of a high A-. The two 

evaluating program offices sponsoring research at Ames Laboratory are: Office of Basic 

Energy Sciences (BES); and Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists 

(WDTS). BES is the largest sponsor, providing over 98% of the total funding. 

The following Goal 3 summary input was provided by each Program Office: 

BES – Weighted Score: 3.7/ AThe overall vision for sponsored research in catalysis science, separations and analysis, and 

chemical physics at Ames Laboratory is reasonable, given its relatively limited scope. The 

scientific vision for materials sciences sponsored research at Ames Laboratory is still being 

developed following the recent change in Laboratory Director and the loss of the leader of 

the Ames Science and Technology Division from senior management. 

 

• Ames has presented a strong management plan for materials sciences supported 

programs that were recently restructured. In particular, Ames is moving forward 

with strong coupling of their highly visible materials preparation capability with 

their research on new materials. 

 

• The laboratory drafted a Scientific Strategic Plan, including a vision statement, but 

it has not been presented to BES in final form. 

 

• Ames management presented BES with a reasonable plan for the future of the 

Analysis program. The program has been a traditional strength at Ames 

Laboratory but is undergoing a significant change in scientific leadership. 

WDTS – Weighted Score: 3.6/A-

• The staff at Ames’s education program office is a highly motivated, collaborative, 

well managed team that works continually to integrate workforce development into 

the goals of the laboratory. They are clear in communicating the roles/ 

responsibilities, and deliverable to the interns, the research division, and the PIs. 

They work successfully with each party to ensure each are fully contributing 

to a quality research experience. 

 9 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

• The WDTS supported programs are gaining prestige within the laboratory as a 

result of effective management, commitment of the staff, and continuing to seek 

opportunities for program improvement. 

• The Ames education office is a very visible community partner and advocate for 

science education at the middle/high school level and manages an excellent regional 

Science Bowl. 

 

Science knowledge transfer from mentor to mentee is validated by coauthored peer 

reviewed abstracts required of all interns. Interns are provided an excellent laboratory 

experience with technical support to accomplish their research, technical writing support to 

complete publishable research papers, and fully integrate into the laboratory culture. Ames 

has goal is to encourage and prepare students to pursue a career at a DOE. 

3.1 Provide Effective and Efficient Stewardship of Scientific Capabilities and Program Vision 

BES – Score/Grade: 3.6/ B+

The overall vision for the BES CSGB Division sponsored research at Ames Laboratory is 

reasonable, given its relatively limited scope. 

The overall vision for the BES MSE Division sponsored research at Ames Laboratory is still 

being developed following the recent change in Laboratory Director and the loss of the 

leader of the Ames Science and Technology Division from senior management. The 

laboratory drafted a Scientific Strategic Plan, including a vision statement, but it has not 

been presented to BES in final form. 

WDTS – Score/Grade: 3.4/ B+ 

 

Ames research interns are recognized for their accomplishments by having papers accepted 

by scientific journals, by presenting at AAAS, and by having posters presented at the 

Science & Energy Research Challenge (SERCh), which features 100 top science students 

from colleges and universities around the country, including historically black colleges and 

universities and minority education institutions. 

3.2 Provide Effective and Efficient Science and Technology Project/Program Planning and 

Management 

BES – Score/Grade: 3.7/ AAmes management presented the BES CSGB Division with a reasonable plan for the future 

of the Analysis program. The program has been a traditional strength at Ames Laboratory 

but is undergoing a significant change in scientific leadership. 

 

The departure of the Division Director for Science and Technology is a serious loss for the 

senior management at the laboratory. It is recognized that a search is underway for a 

replacement. 

 

Ames has presented a strong management plan for BES MSE Division supported programs 

that were recently restructured. In particular, Ames is moving forward with strong 

coupling of their highly visible materials preparation capability with their research on new 

materials. 

 10 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

WDTS – Score/Grade: 3.6 AThe education office does a complete self-assessment each year as required by WDTS. They 

are very credible in listing their strengths and weaknesses and then focus resources on 

eliminating weak spots. They use the results of both mentor and participant survey as the 

bases for program improvement and monitor improvement. 

3.3 Provide Efficient and Effective Communications and Responsiveness to Customer Needs 

BES – Score/Grade: 3.7 APrograms supported by BES CSGB and MSE Divisions were generally responsive and 

communicate well. 

WDTS – Score/Grade: 3.7/ A-

 

DTS has very efficient and effective communication interactions with the education office. 

Their program managers seek and offer suggested guidance frequently. They use the 

formal reporting requirements, which are always timely, and the frequent request for 

feedback on program milestone to ensure HQ and laboratory are in agreement on the high 

quality of deliverables. 

 

Science Program Office 

Letter 

Grade 

Numerical 

Score 

Weight Weighted 

Score 

Overall 

Score 

Office of Basic Energy Sciences 

3.1 Effective and Efficient Stewardship A- 3.6 40% 1.44 

3.2 Project/Program Planning and 

 Management 

A- 3.7 30% 1.11 

3.3 Communications and Responsiveness A- 3.7 30% 1.11 

Overall BES Total 3.66 

Office of Workforce Development for 

Teachers and Scientists

3.1 Effective and Efficient Stewardship B+ 3.4 20% .68 

3.2 Project/Program Planning and 

 Management 

A- 3.6 40% 1.44 

3.3 Communications and Responsiveness A- 3.7 40% 1.48 

Overall WDTS Total 3.6 

Table 3.1 – 3.0 SC Program Office Performance Goal 3.0 Score Development 

Science Program Office Letter 

Grade 

Numerical 

Score 

Funding 

Weight 

(BA) 

Weighted 

Score 

Overall 

Weighted 

Score 

Office of Basic Energy Sciences A- 3.66 98.8 3.62 

Office of Workforce Development for 

Teachers and Scientists A- 3.6 1.2% .04 

Performance Goal 1.0 Total 3.7 

Table 3.2 – SC Program Office Overall Performance Goal 3.0 Score Development 

 11 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

Goal 4.0 Provide Sound and Competent Leadership and Stewardship of the Laboratory

The Contractor’s Leadership provides effective and efficient direction in strategic planning to 

meet the mission and vision of the overall Laboratory; is accountable and responsive to specific 

issues and needs when required; and corporate office leadership provides appropriate levels of 

resources and support for the overall success of the Laboratory. The weight of this Goal is 20%. 

The overall score assigned to Goal 4 is 3.3, which equates to a letter grade of B+. 

As in the previous year, no specific and quantifiable targets were established for Goal 4.0 

due to the subjective nature of this goal and the uniqueness and originality of leadership, 

strategic planning, and management activities. This Goal is shared and evaluated by both 

the Program offices and the Site Office. No specific written comments were received from 

the Program office, however some of the comments written above in Goals 1 & 3 reflect the 

views of the Program office that carry over to this Goal. 

Ames Laboratory met the Objectives of this Goal and the following are highlights of their 

accomplishments: 

• Ames Laboratory Oversight Board (with its external members) has been effective in 

providing guidance and advice to Laboratory management (e.g. input at the midterm reviews and on the beryllium contamination issue.) At the time of the new 

contract in 2006, SC requested that the Contractor establish a Laboratory 

Oversight Board to provide “external” guidance and expertise. This Board is up 

and functioning now, with regular meetings. 

• The Scientific Planning committee developed and released the scientific Strategic 

Plan, including the new vision and mission statement for the Laboratory, which was 

well accepted. The Laboratory was responsive to comments in previous years that 

the Laboratory lacked a clear concise Strategic vision and plan, and responsive to 

the request to have the senior leadership strengthen the strategic vision of the 

laboratory. Also they were asked to better align their organizations with the Science 

missions, which was accomplished with a re-organization. The Lab Director was 

instrumental in getting these tasks completed with team players from all parts of the 

organization.

 

• Laboratory has initiated many opportunities in 2009 to build partnerships. Has 

conducted meetings with Argonne, Princeton, Brookhaven, NREL, EERE, and State 

Agencies. The results of such partnerships should be seen in the next years. 

• Efforts by management and an increase in DOE calls resulted in a significant 

increase in non-programmatic white papers and proposals submitted by the Ames 

Laboratory during the year. The increase in proposals submitted should lead to an 

increase in new work coming into the Lab. 

• The Laboratory and ISU continued to pursue joint appointments in support of 

selected research areas, including materials synthesis and catalysis. 

• Laboratory processes allow for complete review of major risks in order to provide 

the Management Assurance Letter from the Director. 

 12 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

• ISU, the Contractor, continues to their honor commitments made in the contract 

proposal in an outstanding manner. 

ELEMENT Letter 

Grade 

Numerical 

Score 

Objective 

Weight 

Total 

Points 

Total 

Points 

4.0 Effectiveness and Efficiency of 

Contractor Leadership and Stewardship 

4.1 Provide a Distinctive Vision for the 

 Laboratory and an Effective Plan for 

 Accomplishment of the Vision to 

 Include Strong Partnerships Required 

 to Carry Out those Plans 

B+ 3.3 35% 1.16 

4.2 Provide for Responsive and 

 Accountable Leadership throughout 

 the Organization

B+ 3.3 30% .99 

4.3 Provide Efficient and Effective 

 Contractor Support B+ 3.3 35% 1.16 

Performance Goal 4.0 Total 3.3 

Table 4.1: 4.0 Goal Performance Rating Development 

Goal 5.0: Sustain Excellence and Enhance Effectiveness of Integrated Safety, Health, and 

 Environmental Protection

The Contractor sustains and enhances the effectiveness of integrated safety, health and 

environmental protection through a strong and well deployed system. The weight of this Goal is 

30%.

The overall score assigned to Goal 5 is 3.4, which equates to a letter grade of a high B+. 

Ames Laboratory has met the Objectives/Targets of this Goal and the following are 

highlights of their accomplishments: 

• Support from upper management is the cornerstone of the Ames Laboratory’s 

successful safety culture as demonstrated in the handling of the Beryllium issue. 

Ensuring that workers are not being exposed and has bringing in expertise to assist 

in the analysis and determination of the direction needed to resolve the issues. 

• The strength of Ames Laboratory’s Readiness Review process is that it fosters open 

communication amongst laboratory personnel. Line management, workers and 

safety professionals works closely together in developing standard safe operating 

procedures. 

• Ames conducts a thorough analysis of all accidents, injuries and near miss events is 

responsible for the low DART and TRC rates and lack of repeated events. Due to 

the relatively small size of its workforce, Ames cannot experience more than a single 

 13 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

DART case or two TRCs before they are above the SC thresholds for these statistics. 

They have been successfully below or near these thresholds for the last four years. 

• The many opportunities for worker feedback and interactions with professionals 

have resulted in a high level of safety in the performance of work. 

• The quality and consistency of the Ames Laboratory’s internal topical appraisals 

continues to improve and have resulted in a significant reduction the number of 

Level 2 findings from external reviews. 

• Ames Laboratory’s readiness review process has successfully reduced the quantity 

of hazardous wastes generated. 

• TCAP review (5/2009) Overall, the structure of Ames Laboratory’s packaging and 

transportation program is good. Ames Laboratory’s use of excepted and limited 

quantity shipments is well done and is consistent with the DOE regulations related 

to shipping materials using the lowest cost alternative when possible. In addition, 

staff demonstrated competence and an overall understanding of packaging and 

transportation requirements as related to their day-to-day activities. 

ELEMENT Letter 

Grade 

Numerical 

Score 

Objective 

Weight 

Total 

Points 

Total 

Points 

5.0 Sustain Excellence and Enhance 

 Effectiveness of Integrated Safety, 

 Health, and Environmental Protection 

5.1 Provide a Work Environment that 

 Protects Workers and the Environment A- 3.6 35% 1.26 

5.2 Provide Efficient and Effective 

 Implementation of Integrated Safety, 

 Health and Environment Management 

B+ 3.4 35% 1.19 

5.3 Provide Efficient and Effective Waste 

 Management, Minimization, and 

 Pollution Prevention 

B+ 3.3 30% .99 

Performance Goal 5.0 Total 3.44 

Table 5.1 – Goal 5.0 Performance Rating Development

Goal 6.0: Deliver Efficient, Effective, and Responsive Business Systems and Resources 

 that Enable the Successful Achievement of the Laboratory Mission(s) Goal. 

The Contractor sustains and enhances core business systems that provide efficient and 

effective support to Laboratory programs and its mission(s). The weight of this Goal is 20%. 

The overall score assigned to Goal 6 is 3.4, which equates to a grade of high B+. Ames 

Laboratory met the Objectives of this Goal and the following are highlights of their 

accomplishments (which cover many business areas): 

 14 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

• All Integrated Contractor Summary of Collections have been submitted early and 

successfully before noon on the first workday of the month to DOE HQ. 

• All STARS reports for FY 2009 have been submitted early and successfully on the 

first day of the month to DOE headquarters. 

• The Laboratory submitted adequate cost or pricing data and prepared its budget 

IAW the Contract terms and conditions. 

• No issues regarding the Laboratory’s budget formulation. The Laboratory’s FY 2011 

budget submission was submitted in a timely manner. With respect to the Laboratory’s 

FY 2011 budget validation, through sampling, we are satisfied that overall the FY 2011 

budget was submitted in a professional manner and adequately documented. 

• The Laboratory had no cost overruns or material suspense items in STARS and did 

not exceed available funds at the detail reporting level. 

 

• The IG conducted an audit of the payroll systems and related information systems as 

a subset of the audit of DOE’s financial statements for FY2008 and no material 

weaknesses were noted. Corrective actions for audit findings have been completed 

within agreed upon schedules. 

• Joint review of WFO ledger balances by CH Field Office and the Laboratory revealed 

no material differences 

• The Purchasing Department regularly meets with customers, interacts with local 

business, and management to assure that products purchased meet the necessary levels 

of quality. The surveys verified nearly a 100% customer satisfaction in the services and 

products ordered. 

• The Procurement Office has shown a high degree of cooperation with DOE. The 

Procurement staff has consistently presented timely and accurate documentation. The 

Procurement Office has shown great proficiency in supplying large amounts of data 

request to the DOE HQ office and the Ames Site Office. 

• A major accomplishment completed this year was the DOE approval of all ISU - 

specific subcontract clause sets. The work that went into reviewing, correcting and 

finally approval the clause set showed and tremendous amount of teamwork and 

created a clause set that is particular for ISU. 

• Ames Lab exceeded FY 2009 Procurement Balance Scorecard (PBS) target levels. 

The Laboratory successfully met 12 of the 14 core measures within the PBS. 

• The Property Balanced Scorecard successfully met 92.3% of its targets. 

• A five person committee of Professional and Scientific personnel, which included the 

HR Director, reviewed the current HR policies and procedures and found them 

acceptable with form change, which has been in place for several years. The Lab 

continues to use a somewhat unique approach that requires narrative evaluation at the 

measure level without a roll-up to an overall rating. Recommendations will be provided 

 15 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

to Laboratory Management in the near future with implementation of 

recommendations to occur for the 7/1/09 0 6/30/10 rating period. Additionally, 91% of 

P&S staff received formal ratings. This exceeded the target of 75%. Since ISU does not 

approach rating the same as the Ames Laboratory, and several employees are joint 

appointments with the University, this was a significant accomplishment and reflects the 

Senior Leadership support of documenting performance and linking pay decisions to it. 

• The Ames Laboratory management provided sound and acceptable justification to 

ISU/State of Iowa on the need to provide salary increases linked to performance, 

although the State froze salaries due for budgetary concerns. Since the Laboratory’s 

pay is lined up with the University this is a noteworthy accomplishment that reflected 

the Laboratory’s ability to deviate from existing ISU/State pay policies and procedures. 

• The HR 25% target for the review of position descriptions was slightly exceeded in 

that 28% were reviewed during the rating period. 

• The Laboratory prepared its Communications plan on schedule and then executed it 

very well. The quantity and quality of focused. media interactions increased and its 

communication with DOE was exceeded expectations. 

• Also worthy of special note in Public Affairs and Communications, is the creation and 

implementation of the Lab’s Brand Council, which was completed at a fraction of the 

cost of other branding efforts. In addition, the Laboratory Director’s effort to keep 

internal audiences apprised worked very effectively. 

• The Technology Transfer Office (TTO) designed its customer service survey in 

accordance with DOE’s customer survey under DOE G 481.1-1. TTO sent out seven 

(7) surveys and received two (2) responses from its customers. TTO also sent out 

follow-up e-mails but still received no response. Overall, the customer surveys rated 

the Laboratory highly on the administrative as well as the technical performed. 

• Continual improvement of services by reviewing customer surveys is an effective 

approach to maintaining existing customers and winning new ones, especially if your 

goal is to create a strong word-of-mouth following. According to the self-assessment, 

TTO distributed the surveys as they did last year by e-mail. They also followed-up to 

non-responsive survey request by mail and did not receive a response. 

• The Director of TT worked with other members of the TTWG Industrial Interactions 

Committee to design a web-based customer survey that will be implemented on a trial 

basis (5 Laboratory's including Ames) beginning FY2010 and will report back to the 

DOE TT Coordinator or the TT Policy Board as to its effectiveness. 

 

• The total WFO level of non DOE funding for FY2009 was over $3.M. Achieving back 

to back non-DOE funding over $3M indicates a large effort by the Laboratory’s 

proposal efforts. The timely submission and accurate supporting documentation 

submitted by TTO to the Ames site office and Intellectual Property Law (IPL) resulted 

in unprecedented completion rates for Technology Transfer approvals from DOE. 

• TTO continues to utilize their approved standard CRADA and WFO agreements and 

works with CH-IPL to resolve IP issues early in the process when non-standard terms 

are contemplated. 

 16 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

• The contractor managed and reported 16 invention reports and 7 patent applications 

during the fiscal year. DOE-CH-IPL commends the contractor for keeping IPL 

appraised of prosecution developments in filed patent applications and providing 

recommendations for DOE action on those inventions and cases in which the contractor 

no longer has an interest. The Lab continues to be very responsive to IPL's needs 

relating to patent applications filed by DOE which have one or more laboratory 

inventors. All invention disclosures submitted through the I-Edison system continue to 

be accurate and complete and IPL concludes that the Contractor is providing DOE all 

intellectual property reports under the Prime Contract. The Contractor continues to 

exceed expectations by consistently submitting significantly more invention disclosures 

(and filing more patent applications) than other similarly sized DOE laboratories. The 

Contractor should be commended on its new streamlined Patent Clearance process that 

has significantly increased the efficiency of the clearance process. 

ELEMENT Letter 

Grade 

Numerical 

Score 

Objective 

Weight 

Total 

Points 

Total 

Points 

6.0 Deliver Efficient, Effective, and 

Responsive Business Systems and 

Resources that Enable the Successful 

Achievement of the Laboratory 

Mission(s) 

6.1 Provide an Efficient, Effective, and 

Responsive Financial Management 

System(s) 

A- 3.5 25% .88 

6.2 Provide an Efficient, Effective, and 

Responsive Acquisition B+ 3.3 10% .33 

6.3 Provide an Efficient, Effective, and 

Responsive Property Management System B+ 3.3 10% .33 

6.4 Provide an Efficient, Effective, and 

Responsive Human Resources Management 

System 

A- 3.5 10% .35 

6.5 Provide Efficient, Effective, and Responsive 

Management Systems for Internal Audit and 

Oversight; Quality; Information 

Management; and Other Administrative 

Support Services as Appropriate 

B+ 3.4 25% .85 

6.6 Demonstrate Effective Transfer of 

Technology and Commercialization of 

Intellectual Assets 

A- 3.5 20% .7 

Performance Goal 6.0 Total 3.44 

 

Table 6.1 – 6.0 Goal Performance Rating Development 

 17 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

Goal 7.0: Sustain Excellence in Operating, Maintaining, and Renewing the Facility and

 Infrastructure Portfolio to Meet Laboratory Needs

The Contractor provides appropriate planning for, construction and management of Laboratory 

facilities and infrastructures required to efficiently and effectively carry out current and future 

S&T programs. The weight of this Goal is 20%. 

Ames Laboratory has met or exceeded the Objectives/Targets of this Goal and the overall 

score assigned to Goal 7 is 3.5, which equates to a letter grade of A-. The following are 

highlights of their accomplishments: 

• Ames has accomplished an internal mission readiness evaluation and is 

prepping for their Peer Review Mission Readiness assessment for FY2011. 

• Ames exceeded their FY2009 Energy requirements that are outlined in their 

Comprehensive Energy Plan. 

• Completed a small ARRA funded General Plant Project (Records Storage Area) 

under budget and ahead of schedule. 

• Supported the ESCO on-site proposal activities in a high quality manner. Due to 

trace beryllium found in the stacks the process has been put on hold. 

• Ames has done an excellent job with limited funding maintaining their aging 

facilities by substantially reducing their deferred maintenance and maintaining 

their facilities at an Asset Condition Index (ACI) of .98 

• Relatively small (<$1M) annual GPP budget has been managed well to 

accomplish larger projects over multi-years such as the HVAC project. 

ELEMENT Letter 

Grade 

Numerical 

Score 

Objective 

Weight 

Total 

Points 

Total 

Points 

7.0 Sustain Excellence in Operating, 

Maintaining, and Renewing the 

Facility and Infrastructure Portfolio to 

Meet Laboratory Needs 

7.1 Manage Facilities and Infrastructure in an 

Efficient and Effective Manner that 

Optimizes Usage and Minimizes Life 

Cycle Costs 

A- 3.6 80% 2.88 

7.2 Provide Planning for and Acquire the 

Facilities and Infrastructure Required to 

support Future Laboratory Programs

B+ 3.3 20% ..66 

Performance Goal 7.0 Total 3.5 

 

Table 7.1 – 7.0 Goal Performance Rating Development 

 18 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

Goal 8.0: Sustain and Enhance the Effectiveness of Integrated Safeguards and 

 Security Management (ISSM) and Emergency Management Systems

The Contractor sustains and enhances the effectiveness of integrated safeguards and security 

and emergency management through a strong and well deployed system. The weight of this 

Goal is 10%. 

Ames Laboratory has met (a few exceeded) the Objectives/Targets of this Goal. The 

overall score assigned to Goal 8 is 3.4, which equates to a letter grade of a high B+. 

 and the following are highlights of their accomplishments 

• Ames Laboratory met all of the specific measures and targets in the 2009 PEMP. 

• No major security or emergency management issues are evident at the Laboratory. 

• The effectiveness of the Lab’s ISSM System was verified through the FY 2009 

Safeguards & Security Survey, with only one minor finding, a significant 

improvement from previous external reviews. 

• Annual walkthroughs continue to be performed to ensure that cyber controls are 

effectively implemented across programs and departments. 

• Special Nuclear Materials are maintained at a minimum level. 

• 

• 100% of employees received annual cyber security awareness training 

• Incidents of Concern are identified and processed through the Lab’s revised Event 

Reporting Program. 

• 100% of Foreign Travel trip reports were submitted on time. 

• A review of the FY-2009 interaction between the Ames Laboratory and the Chicago 

Field Office (CFO), Office of Intelligence and Counterintelligence has revealed a 

pattern of consistent adherence to the Counterintelligence Site Support Plan, and a 

high level of support to our Counterintelligence Officers and the CFO mission. The 

Laboratory has been critical to successful CI support by coordinating interview 

requests, supporting CI Awareness, and advocating additional host training for the 

Unclassified Foreign Visits and Assignments program. 

• The lab's support to the DOE CI Program has been high across the spectrum of our 

responsibilities, including incidents of particular note such as early involvement of 

the CFO when considering a T4 nation visit, a high level of responsiveness in 

support of the CI cyber program, fostering Ames lab scientist reports of CI concern 

to the CFO, and encouraging prompt reporting of unsolicited contacts. The 

Laboratory has fully supported the DOE CI mission during this reporting period. 

 19 
FY 2009 Performance Evaluation Report 

Of Iowa State University 

ELEMENT Letter 

Grade 

Numerical 

Score 

Objective 

Weight 

Total 

Points 

Total 

Points 

8.0 Sustain and Enhance the 

Effectiveness of Integrated 

Safeguards and Security Management 

(ISSM) 

8.1 Provide an Efficient and Effective 

Emergency Management System B+ 3.4 35% 1.19 

8.2 Provide an Efficient and Effective

System for Cyber-Security B+ 3.4 45% 1.53 

8.3 Provide an Efficient and Effective

System for the Protection of Special 

Nuclear Materials, Classified Matter, 

and Property 

B+ 3.4 10% .34 

8.4 Provide an Efficient and Effective CI

System for the Protection of Classified 

and Sensitive Information 

B+ 3.4 10% ..34 

Performance Goal 8.0 Total 3.4 

 

Table 8.1 – 8.0 Goal Performance Rating Development 

 20