As we continuously look for ways to improve our tools and processes, we want to know what’s working and what could improve when using our current Lessons Learned Database. Your insights are important to helping us design a more efficient and user-friendly Lessons Learned Database.
Click here to take our short database user survey: https://forms.gle/oAnBwiQSfgiyhz8MA
Lessons learned aren’t just for safety-related events. Everyday wins such as the best practices we use to perform receipt inspections, use of new metrics or AI tools to analyze data, and other work process improvements could be a lessons learned article that benefits someone across the office or 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.
At Berkeley Lab, stewardship means taking responsibility for our mission, our people, the environment and our resources. One way we put that into practice is through the stewardship principle: We Earn Trust. Trust is built through our everyday actions and the standards we uphold in our work.
Building and maintaining trust requires a consistent commitment to excellence, integrity, safety, transparency, reliability, and accountability. Whether working with the public, the scientific community, stakeholders, or our colleagues, the way we communicate, collaborate, and take responsibility for our work shapes the confidence others have in our organization.
These same values are at the core of a strong Contractor Assurance System (CAS). CAS supports continuous improvement, operational excellence, and accountability by encouraging clear communication, safe work practices, and transparency. When we consistently demonstrate these behaviors, trust becomes something we actively earn and maintain.
To learn more about CAS and how it is applied at the Lab, consider signing up for CAS 101.
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.
Was this page useful?
