The Mission Readiness of Office of Science Laboratories

LBNL Life Sciences Building (Bldg 74)

·        The mission readiness of a laboratory’s facilities and infrastructure is defined as the capability of those assets to enable delivery of the scientific mission assigned to the laboratory.  The Mission Readiness Assessment Process will be used in concert with the SC Annual Laboratory Plans to plan for and evaluate the success of our Facilities and Infrastructure program in assuring mission readiness.

·        The Mission Readiness Assessment Process is centered on integration between a laboratory’s scientific staff and facilities staff.  The process provides a framework for assessing facility and infrastructure capabilities and their ability to serve scientific missions.  It results in capability improvement action plans that describe needed investments via line items, maintenance investment, or other means.  See paper on Mission Readiness Process.    

·        Annual Laboratory Plans present both the scientific and general infrastructure/operational plans for the laboratory in the context of anticipated contributions to the DOE missions.  Plans are submitted in the April timeframe and used for discussion and agreement between laboratory management and SC management on the laboratories’ mission futures.   

·        The action plans derived from the Mission Readiness Assessment Process are documented in the Annual Laboratory Plans and represent a planned commitment on the part of both SC and the laboratories to fund the necessary investments that will ensure the future mission readiness of each laboratory. These action plans, specifically the investments proposed for line item SLI funding, form the basis for projects included in SC’s Infrastructure Modernization Initiative.

·        The FY 2008 Annual Laboratory Plans incorporated the early stages of implementation of the Mission Readiness Assessment Process by specifically tying proposed future investments to laboratory Business Lines.  Since that time, all ten SC laboratories have begun full implementation of the Mission Readiness Assessment Process, and results will be included in future revisions to Annual Lab Plans.

·        The process specifically includes checklists to assess facility and infrastructure capability (now, in five years, and in ten years) to serve scientific business lines, capability improvement action plans (i.e., needed investments), standardized tables that reflect infrastructure gaps and the action plan necessary to address them. 

·        Peer reviews of each laboratory’s Mission Readiness protocols are beginning in the first quarter of FY 2009 and will continue, with roughly three laboratory’s undergoing peer review in each of the next three years.  See paper on the Peer Review Process.

·        SC has also successfully worked with the DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management to incorporate the Mission Readiness approach into the Department’s Three-Year Rolling Timeline (TYRT) of infrastructure goals. The TYRT reflects the Department’s Strategic Facilities Plan and agreements with OMB.

·        By FY 2011, the Mission Readiness Assessment Process will be fully implemented and peer reviewed at each of our laboratories and will be the basis for infrastructure investment decisions.

·        Implementation of the Mission Readiness Assessment Process does not diminish the need for maintaining accurate facilities data such as maintenance, deferred maintenance and replacement plant value within the Department’s Facility Information Management System (FIMS), but shifts the SC focus from maintenance and condition metrics (e.g., asset condition index, maintenance spending as a percentage of Replacement Plant Value) to a system that aligns asset capabilities with the requirements necessary to support cutting-edge research.         

·        The SC Mission Readiness Assessment Process is consistent with the recommendations of the National Research Council 2004 Report “Intelligent Sustainment and Renewal of Department of Energy Facilities and Infrastructure.” The Report recommends development of Mission Condition and Mission Effectiveness indices.

2