1

Introduction

ORIGIN OF STUDY

The conference report accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (P.L. 116-260) requested that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) “contract with an independent entity to develop a report that assesses the comprehensive capital needs of NIST’s campuses.”¹ In response, NIST’s Office of Facilities and Property Management (OFPM) approached the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s (the National Academies’) Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment to conduct this assessment.

NIST and the National Academies entered into a contract on September 1, 2021, and the National Academies established the Committee on Technical Assessment of the Capital Facility Needs of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, composed of diverse experts in the fields of architecture, construction, engineering economics, facility management and condition assessment, building performance, building design standards, building operations and maintenance, federal planning and budgeting, scientific research infrastructure, infrastructure lifetime management, asset management, and metrology. Committee member biographical information is provided in Appendix G.

NIST provides critical impact to the nation in standards and frontier research with a mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve quality of life. NIST supports innovative manufacturing that impacts the U.S. economy and national security. NIST undertakes mission-essential forensic analyses for federal, state, and local law enforcement, as well as the Department of Homeland Security. The NIST mission is accomplished primarily at its campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland, and its Boulder, Colorado, campus.

STATEMENT OF TASK

This committee was charged with the following:

At the request of the NIST Office of Facilities and Property Management, [the National Academies] shall convene an ad hoc study committee that shall investigate the following four (4) focus areas:

___________________

¹ 116RCP68, Division B—Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2021, p. 17, https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20201221/BILLS-116RCP68-JES-DIVISION-B.pdf, accessed April 26, 2022.

1. Identifying the NIST facilities and utilities infrastructure in greatest need of recapitalization, of repair, and of those most impacting the research mission’s implementation;
2. Assessing the composition of individual capital and repair projects to bring the NIST Gaithersburg, Maryland and Boulder, Colorado campuses’ research and support facilities and utilities infrastructure up to current standards of acceptable operational performance to meet their assigned mission objectives;
3. Evaluating at a high level the completeness, accuracy, and relevance of cost estimates (already developed by/for NIST) for proposed individual capital and repair projects; and
4. Identifying potential factors and approaches that NIST should consider in developing a comprehensive capital strategy for its two campuses’ portfolio of facilities and utilities infrastructure.

The study shall consider and identify approaches based on five (5), ten (10), fifteen (15), and twenty (20) year prioritization outlooks.

In addition, to better inform capital facility planning and operational sustainment of NIST’s two campuses, the ad hoc study committee shall review comparable available facility condition methodologies and metrics of other historically designated federal agencies at an overall portfolio level, and provide recommendations in determining the minimum levels of funding (two components – for individual building and utility infrastructure capitalization/re-capitalization and for the campuses’ overall annual operations/maintenance/repair [OMR] needs) required to sustain NIST’s assets at an overall portfolio level.

Committee’s Approach to the Statement of Task

During the investigations by the committee, it became clear that for a research-intensive agency such as NIST, rapid changes make meaningful predictions impractical when made over 5-year intervals and up to 20 years into the future. Therefore, instead of addressing the statement of task item precisely as written, the committee concluded it was more meaningful to present time horizons for addressing the backlog of maintenance, functionality, and renovation for suitability to mission associated with existing facilities, as well as the time horizons for modernization, decommissioning, replacement, and acquisition of facilities. These included both a 10-year plan and ongoing 20- to 30-year plans.

Due to the number of facilities and their very poor condition in terms of both condition and functionality, it was not possible to prioritize which facilities needed to be repaired or recapitalized. The committee did not have the time or resources to engage in the in-depth investigation that would have been needed to produce a rigorous prioritization of facilities’ needs. To do so, they would have had to engage in multiple lengthy site visits and gather and analyze vast volumes of highly detailed information. That was beyond their ability. NIST, recognizing the great need, conducted in 2022 a reassessment of facility needs and the committee reviewed that reassessment in detail and endorsed it.

Finally, the committee did not examine alternate approaches to those discussed in the report. They very quickly arrived at the common position that (a) the OFPM plans to address the facilities situation is the right approach for now, (b) that it’s important to get going on it and adjust the future portions as required by circumstances (the committee expects that there will be adjustments as this is a dynamic situation), and (c) that presenting and discussion alternative approaches for OFPM and NIST ton consider would prevent them from moving out quickly to address their facilities problems. The committee strongly believes that OFPM and NIST should begin implementing the plans that they have and not be distracted by more alternatives, studies, and plans.

COMMITTEE’S ACTIVITIES

While conducting this study the committee members gathered information from several sources. The committee received a detailed briefing from NIST and responses to many questions and requests for information sent to NIST. The committee also used information from publications judged to be of high quality and had many interactions with officials and personnel at NIST including the chief facilities management officer, as well as many NIST researchers and other staff during the tours.

The committee held ten committee meetings, seven remote virtual and two hybrid (in-person with a remote option for members who could not travel to the meetings) at which they met with the sponsor and conducted deliberations. It held virtual meetings with representatives from three government agencies—the National Institutes of Health, the Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development Center, and the Department of the Interior—and one university research laboratory, the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory.

The committee also toured both the NIST campuses in Gaithersburg, Maryland (579 acres, 61 buildings), and Boulder, Colorado (206 acres, 30 buildings). At the request of the committee, the tours included spaces from good to bad physical condition and functionality to allow the committee to understand the challenges of poor facilities, the reassignment of space to meet mission critical activities, programs that require critical dependencies on building environment, and the benefits of modern, functional, good-condition facilities. The campus tour facilities are listed in Table 1-1.

The committee is aware that the audiences for its report are likely to be the Senate and House authorizing committees for NIST; the Appropriations Subcommittees for Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies; the National Capital Planning Commission; the Office of Management and Budget’s Housing, Treasury, and Commerce Division; Department of Commerce; the Director of NIST and the Under Secretary for Standards and Technology; and the NIST Office of Management Resources. The findings and recommendations resulting from this study would likely influence the strategies and approaches for the implementation of a NIST capital strategy for buildings and infrastructure across the portfolio of facilities. It is also likely that other federal agencies will find the information in this report, especially in Chapter 6, to be useful.

STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

The statement of task is addressed by the chapters as outlined in Table 1-2. When considering the organization of this report, the committee confronted two questions. First, why has NIST come to be in this situation? Why have not the funds necessary to prevent the decline in its facilities provided and, in some cases, sought? Second, in a resource-constrained environment—the government not having infinite funds available and being confronted by many pressing needs—if NIST is doing great work in substandard facilities, why is this a pressing problem?

TABLE 1-1 Laboratories Visited at Boulder and Gaithersburg Campuses

The committee believes that the answer to the first question is that decades of data-driven arguments have not worked. What is needed is a clear statement of the impact of the poor facility conditions and functionalities on NIST’s work and its ability to accomplish its mission, of what the nation is losing.

The committee believes that the answer to the second question is that NIST researchers have only continued to deliver world-class² research by dint of heroic dedication, often fighting the poor condition and lacking functionality of their own facilities to do their jobs. In short, as good as things may seem now, NIST could be producing at a much higher level and, if the stunning decline in the quality of its facilities is not reversed, NIST will stop being able to deliver world-class research. In short, NIST will stop being able to deliver world-class research. In short, any current appearance of great work being produced in substandard facilities is an illusion that will soon collapse absent corrective action. Accordingly, the committee carefully and intentionally crafted a report to lay out NIST’s value to the nation, lay out the dire condition and functionality of many of its facilities, discuss corrective measures, and discuss real property portfolio management best practices that could help NIST to avoid ever winding up back in this position.

Chapter 2 provides an overview of NIST, including the mission, value proposition to the nation, past accomplishments, and organization, with emphasis on the two locations reviewed.

Chapter 3 addresses the existing facilities, their performance, issues and impact on mission, and the value proposition for both the Gaithersburg and Boulder campuses. That chapter has a particular focus on laboratory facilities, and examples of impact on measurement science research and development, as well as campus infrastructure issues.

Chapter 4 describes the NIST processes for sustaining, restoring, and modernizing the existing facilities. That chapter explains the search for root causes of the unsatisfactory facilities situation, including analysis of the internal practices of OFPM. Deciding those practices were not the source of the problem, the chapter then explores the funding levels made available to NIST, finding them to have been woefully inadequate over the past two decades and recognized as such by the federally mandated Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology. The chapter concludes with an analysis of the OFPM 2022 Infrastructure Plan, a coordinated recovery plan for existing infrastructure.

Chapter 5 describes the planning practices for portfolio management and capital projects, including the roles of strategic plans and master plans. It addresses incorporation of enterprise risk management, the Energy Independence and Security Act, and the National Historic Preservation Act, as well as implementation processes of the master plan, particularly under the historically constrained budgets. This chapter also includes a high-level evaluation of project costs and capital acquisition strategies. It concludes with best practices for consideration. Both Chapters 4 and 6 address the difference between internal and external factors with respect to funding and practices.

Finally, Chapter 6 presents sustainable ownership strategies for NIST’s facility portfolio, including a proactive approach and the inclusion of program requirements in facility planning. These steps are intended to move toward a comprehensive total cost of ownership approach, leading to portfolio revitalization and a real property capital plan. This chapter also contains summaries of the committee meetings with other agencies. Table 1-2 maps the chapters to the committee’s statement of tas

___________________

² This report uses “world-class” in the sense of being among the best in the world.

TABLE 1-2 Mapping of the Statement of Task to the Report Chapters