Navigating the Requirements and Policies Manual (RPM) is now easier with the new CBorg RPM Advisor, Berkeley Lab’s AI-powered policy assistant.
Unlike keyword searches, this tool understands context, letting you ask questions in plain English for instant, cited answers on topics like procurement or remote work guidelines.
Try the CBorg RPM Advisor today! Find the link in the orange box on the RPM Webpage: https://commons.lbl.gov/spaces/rpm2/pages/72351816/RPM
Add it to the Institutional Lessons Learned and Best Practices (LLBP) Database!
When you document project lessons learned as institutional lessons learned briefings, you turn local experiences into institutional knowledge. By sharing lessons learned briefings to the LBNL LLBP Database, these articles become searchable by other LBNL projects. These lessons learned maintain accuracy and relevancy due to a built-in triennial review process and can be embedded in Work Planning & Control (WPC) activities. They can also be shared to DOE Opexshare to help projects across the DOE complex.
Have a lesson to share but don’t know where to start? Reach out to lessonslearned@lbl.gov to schedule a collaborative writing session
The Risk Profile is a routine DOE requirement under OMB Circular A-123 and a core component of the Laboratory’s annual Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) process. It provides an enterprise-level view of the Laboratory’s most significant strategic, operational, compliance, and reporting risks, along with the internal controls and mitigation strategies in place to manage them. Through the Risk Profile, DOE gains insight into how the Laboratory monitors changes in its operating environment, maintains effective internal controls, and provides annual assurance on control effectiveness in support of DOE strategic and operational objectives. The Risk Profile process typically begins in December, in accordance with DOE guidance.
What is the mid-year (MY) PEMP?
The Mid-Year (MY) Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (PEMP) reporting is conducted in the second quarter of the fiscal year.
Why is it important?
This process is critical to the Laboratory’s annual performance evaluation with the Department of Energy.
Who coordinates the process?
The Institutional Contract Assurance Office (ICAO) coordinates the MY PEMP process.
ICAO collaborates closely with Laboratory leadership, divisions, the University of California, and the Department of Energy.
What does it entail?
The process involves structured planning, schedule coordination, and tri-party engagement.
What’s the purpose?
It supports clear and constructive dialogue on performance status, risks, and emerging issues.
Is there anything else I need to know?
The MY PEMP ensures alignment, accountability, and readiness for the year-end performance evaluation.
What exactly is an Effectiveness Review (ER)?
Think of it as the final “Evaluate” phase of our IMP. It’s a deep dive, not just a check-the-box exercise, to confirm a corrective action truly fixed a problem at its source.
An effective ER is essential for validating that a solution genuinely addresses the underlying root cause(s) of an issue, moving beyond mere surface-level symptoms. It serves to ensure the fix is durable and sustainable, preventing recurrence of the same or similar problems. Furthermore, the review confirms that the solution did not introduce any new, unintended consequences or operational risks. Ultimately, the ER demonstrates verifiable performance improvement, solidifying our commitment as a learning organization.
When is an ER required?
The IMP uses a risk-based approach to focus our assurance efforts where they matter most. The need for an ER depends on the issue’s severity: It is Required for all corrective actions addressing high-risk issues, and Recommended (strongly encouraged) for medium-risk issues. This isn’t an immediate sign-off. ERs are typically performed 6 to 12 months after the corrective action is implemented. This essential “run-time” allows new processes to become fully institutionalized, giving us a clear picture of their long-term effectiveness.
How is an ER actually done?
To guarantee an unbiased assessment, an ER is conducted by a chartered team of objective individuals who were not involved in implementing the original fix. They use a variety of methods to get a complete picture, including: Reviewing key documents like the original Root Cause Analysis and updated procedures; Observing work in the field to see if new processes are being followed correctly in a real-world setting; Analyzing performance metrics to provide tangible proof of improvement, such as a downward trend in adverse events; and Interviewing personnel to confirm staff understanding, buy-in, and compliance with the changes.
What happens after the review?
The team compiles its findings into a formal report, concluding whether the fix was effective, partially effective, or ineffective. If a corrective action is found to be only partially effective or ineffective, new or revised corrective actions must be developed. This ensures we don’t leave a problem half-solved and truly close the loop on the issue.
Any examples of recent Effectiveness Reviews at LBNL?
A: Absolutely. Over the past five years, teams across the Lab have conducted more than 30 Effectiveness Reviews, applying them to a wide range of situations. These reviews fall into two main categories:
Strengthening Lab-wide Systems: ERs are used to validate major improvements in our foundational programs. For example, reviews have been performed to confirm that corrective actions successfully addressed gaps in our Chemical Management Program, Personnel Security Program, and key financial processes like invoice certification. This ensures our core operational systems are robust and working as intended.
Ensuring We Learn from Incidents: After serious incidents occur, ERs are a critical final step to confirm that the changes we made are effective. Reviews have been completed for corrective actions following events such as the telehandler incident, a serious hand injury, and a chemical container burst. These reviews make sure that our actions were effective and that safety lessons are truly embedded in our work practices to prevent recurrence.
These examples show how versatile and vital the ER process is. It’s a tool we use not only to respond to incidents but also to proactively ensure the health and integrity of our most important programs.
Can I get some help to perform an ER?
ICAO’s Issues Management Program has put together some templates and tools in a Getting Started with an Effectiveness Review toolkit. We also offer a training session on a need basis if any Effectiveness Review is to be conducted. If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out to LBNL’s Issues Management Program Manager, Manjot Grewal, at Issues-Management@lbl.gov.
What are they?
Internal controls are built-in practices that help all of us do our work well. They support safe, responsible, and efficient operations from managing research funds and reporting time to protecting data and systems.
Why are they important to the Lab?
Internal controls help protect people, information, and Lab resources. They support compliance with Department of Energy and UC requirements and help maintain the trust that enables Berkeley Lab to advance world-class science.
What do they look like in practice?
They are part of routine work, such as:
• Confirming project funding before spending
• Supervisors reviewing time, travel, and purchases
• Separating roles for requesting, approving, and reviewing work
• Limiting and regularly reviewing system access
• Following documented procedures and completing required training
Why do they matter to you?
Because they support your work. Internal controls reduce delays, prevent rework, and help keep projects moving so we can stay focused on the science and services that matter most.
The Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan (PEMP) is the Department of Energy’s primary tool for evaluating UC’s leadership and Berkeley Lab’s performance under Contract 31. Structured around eight performance goals, the PEMP defines how the Lab is assessed in delivering scientific excellence, safe and effective operations, and responsible stewardship. Strong results directly influence DOE decisions on award fees and contract extensions, making the PEMP central to the Lab’s long-term success. In upcoming issues, we will share more about the PEMP process, milestones throughout the year, and how divisions and staff contribute to ensuring accountability and excellence.
Aligned assurance brings clarity to risk, confidence to action, and strength to discovery.
At Berkeley Lab, collaboration is the foundation of discovery. Across every division and discipline, success depends on people working together toward shared goals. The same principle guides how we manage risk, ensure accountability, and keep the Lab mission-ready.
That is why Internal Audit Services (IAS) and the Institutional Contractor Assurance Office (ICAO) have strengthened their collaboration through Aligned Assurance, an approach designed to make oversight more connected, efficient, and meaningful for everyone at the Lab.
A Coordinated Approach to Assurance
Aligned Assurance builds on the Lab’s Four Lines of Defense model, which is a framework that clarifies how each part of the organization contributes to managing risk and accountability across all levels.
Berkeley Lab’s Four Lines of Defense within the Contractor Assurance System.
First Line – You. Every employee helps manage risk by following procedures, maintaining safety, protecting data, and raising concerns early.
Second Line – ICAO. Oversees the Contractor Assurance System (CAS) and enterprise risk management, promoting performance monitoring and continuous improvement.
Third Line – IAS. Provides independent assurance that controls are effective and risks are managed appropriately, sharing insights that strengthen accountability and efficiency.
Fourth Line – External Oversight. Includes oversight by the Department of Energy (DOE) and University of California (UC). These entities provide independent assurance beyond internal audit, reinforcing transparency, compliance, and governance effectiveness.
Your Role in Aligned Assurance
Assurance is part of everyone’s work at Berkeley Lab. Each time you follow established policies, identify a potential risk, or participate openly during a review, you reinforce the Lab’s integrity and commitment to excellence.
Following established policies and controls.
Together, these actions build trust and accountability that define our Lab culture.
Aligned Assurance is about creating connection and clarity across the Lab’s oversight system. By integrating the four lines of defense, the Lab gains a comprehensive view of risk management from operational controls to independent external oversight. This connected approach enhances decision-making, streamlines assurance activities, and strengthens support for safe operations and world-class science.
Together, we are building not only a more coordinated system but a more confident, transparent, and resilient Lab community.
Quality Assurance (QA) helps the Lab plan and execute work in a reliable, repeatable and sustainable manner and is a key component of stewardship. While successfully meeting our mission and key objectives is critical, the manner with which we achieve that is just as important.
Suspect/Counterfeit Items (S/CIs) are a subset of nonconforming items. Nonconforming items are items that we receive and inspect or maintain that do not meet the Lab’s specifications or requirements and/or perform as intended.
Suspect items that don’t conform to specifications and documentation, appearance, performance, material, or other characteristics of the items may have been misrepresented by the supplier (e.g., distributor, manufacturer, subcontractor).
Counterfeit items are copied or substituted without legal right or authority that have been misrepresented by the supplier (e.g., distributor, manufacturer, subcontractor).
Do you have an example of the consequences resulting from a suspect or counterfeit item being used? How did it happen? What would have prevented it?
Using S/CIs can result in all sorts of adverse situations including death, injury, exposure, incidents/events, loss of integrity, inoperability, etc.
One example of an S/CI case involves the Bayview Project where site preparation was being made to accommodate the future construction of the Integrated Genomics Building (IGB) and BioEpic. An inspection was performed of items that were going to be used in a water distribution system that included water to be used for the Fire Protection Program. It was found that large amounts of pipe that, according to the Lab’s specifications were to be new and coated with epoxy to prevent or minimize corrosion once in the ground, looked used and a number of areas of the epoxy were flaked off and/or rusted. Had this piping been used, it would have compromised the lifecycle of the water distribution system, and if a fire would’ve occurred at a future date once the IGB was constructed, it’s very possible that the piping would’ve corroded, water output wouldn’t be available or significantly minimized and the fire department wouldn’t have been able to put the fire out.
The subcontractor segregated or tagged the piping to prevent inadvertent use of the items and replaced the piping. The new piping was inspected by the Fire Marshall and approved for installation.
S/CI’s can be prevented or significantly minimized. Things you can do to protect yourself include:
Are there any general things to look for? Who do you tell if you find something S/CI?
Do you foresee an uptick in the amount of S/CI items coming in from foreign countries due to increased tariffs?
The S/CI industry is a multi-trillion dollar business annually, making it the largest criminal enterprise worldwide surpassing the combined value of illegal drug and human trafficking industries.
Yes; I foresee an uptick in S/CIs due to tariffs. It’s all about “supply and demand”. Tariffs raise the prices of authentic products making it more tempting to purchase cheaper, suspect and/or counterfeit alternatives.
Counterfeiters often operate outside of legal trade channels, allowing them to bypass tariffs and sell goods at extremely low prices. The increased demand for cheaper goods, including counterfeit goods, makes the counterfeiting business profitable. As consumers look for cheaper goods to avoid the high prices of authentic products, the demand for counterfeit items can increase.
Tariffs, coupled with the global (as opposed to local) supply chain, make it more likely that S/CIs will enter into the supply chain. This may impact the ability of items to meet User specifications and perform as intended.
Now, more than ever, it will be important to look at the price of an item before you purchase it (if it’s too good to be true, it probably is) and inspect or test them prior to installation and operation to ensure that they meet User specifications and other requirements, and perform as intended. This will help to prevent inadvertent use of non-pedigreed or substandard items in Lab systems and subsystems.
Where do I find guidance on S/CI for anything QA related?
Additional guidance and resources can be located in the Lab’s QA Program Description (QAPD) and on the Lab’s S/CI website.
About Melanie Gravois: Melanie has worked in the Institutional Contractor Assurance Office (ICAO), formerly the Institutional Assurance & Integrity Office (OIAI), for nearly 19 years. She was hired to help build the Institutional Assurance office as we currently know it today and to design, develop and roll out the Issues Management Program. After that was accomplished, she became the Institutional Quality Assurance Program (QAP) Manager and has been serving in this role for the last 15 years.
Prior to coming to the Lab, Melanie spent 7.5 years at a DOE nuclear facility, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) and Central Characterization Project (CCP) headquarters, in New Mexico as the Institutional Site QA Officer. There, she oversaw the QA activities associated with identifying, shipping and disposing of radiological waste generated at Federal nuclear facilities from the Cold War era.
At the Lab, she manages the QAP to ensure work is performed in a reliable, repeatable, and sustainable manner. She improves efficiency by preventing rework through establishing policies, procedures, and training, partnering with stakeholders to solve problems and ensuring consistent QA application. For Melanie, QA allows all of us to “work smarter, NOT harder”, and is a fundamental approach that allows us to focus on those things that are most important.
Was this page useful?
