engineering, construction, community management and operation, communications, plant
maintenance, and improvements; and directly supervises planning, engineering, design and
construction at installations other than field offices, to which he also renders staff assistance on construction related matters.
24.
BUDGET
Due to SFO management's unfamiliarity with the operations which it inherited from
MED, together with lack of data on past performance from which to project an enormous
expansion program, it was natural that the budgeting process operated under great diffi-~
culty during the first three-year period of SFO's operation.
Not until the end of fiscal year 1950 had both the organizational structure and the accounting system of SFO developed to the stage where definite patterns were becoming apparent, making it possible to use a reasonably consistent approach in establishing a practical budget system.
‘
Consequently, a great deal of effort was devoted after fiscal year 1950 to budget
methods and system development and increased participation by responsible operating personnel in budget preparation and review in order to enhance the effectiveness of budgets as
direct management tools.
Another area receiving considerable attention was the indoctri-
io
nation of AEC and contractor personnel in SFO budget procedures and practices.
Early in fiscal year 1951, the system of formal quarterly budget reviews was instituted, and responsible operating officials were designated as expense coordinators to review and approve all aspects of contractor and field office budgets. As AEC and contractor personnel gained a better understanding of SFO budgeting and reporting requirements,
the formal quarterly review was reduced to two reviews a year, one at the beginning of the
current fiscal year and another at mid-year. The expense coordinator concept has been
continued throughout this period.
Budget procedures and practices necessary to meet Washington requirements, and
at the same time to serve the needs of SFOO management without placing an undue reporting
burden upon contractors, were developed during this period, along with criteria basic to
review of budget estimates.
This area requires additional study, particularly with respect
to furnishing top management with more meaningful summaries, trends and rates of prog-
ress, and to utilization of contractor internal budgeting and reporting systems in AEC management controls.
In general, contractor budget staffs have been strengthened since fiscal year 1950, and
noticeable improvement in budget submissions has resulted.
Major projects requiring further study are those relating to improvement and simplifi-
cation of the budget system to provide a more meaningful operating tool to all levels of AEC
management and development of additional standards and refinement of existing criteria for
use in budget administration.
DOE/ALO
na
54 us