The National Academies shall appoint a panel to assess independently the scientific and technical work performed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Physical Measurement Laboratory (PML). The panel will review technical reports and technical program descriptions prepared by NIST staff and will visit the facilities of the Physical Measurement Laboratory. Visits will include technical presentations by NIST staff, demonstrations of NIST projects, tours of NIST facilities, and discussions with NIST staff. The panel will deliberate findings in closed sessions and will prepare a report summarizing its assessment findings and recommendations.

NIST has requested that the laboratories be assessed against the following broad criteria:
1. Assess the organization's technical programs.

• How does the quality of the research compare to similar world-class research in the technical program areas?
• Is the quality of the technical programs adequate for the organization to reach its stated technical objectives? How could it be improved?

2. Assess the portfolio of scientific expertise within the organization.

• Does the organization have world-class scientific expertise in the areas of the organization's mission and program objectives? If not, in what areas should it be improved?
• How well does the organization's scientific expertise support the organization's technical programs and the organization's ability to achieve its stated objectives?

3. Assess the adequacy of the organization's budget, facilities, equipment, and human resources.

• How well do the facilities, equipment, and human resources support the organization's technical programs and its ability to achieve its stated objectives? How could they be improved?

4. Assess the effectiveness by which the organization disseminates its program outputs.

• How well are the organization's research programs driven by stakeholder needs?
• How effective are the dissemination methods and technology transfer mechanisms used by the organization? Are these mechanisms sufficiently comprehensive?
• How well is this organization monitoring stakeholder use and impact of program outputs? How could this be improved?