4

Practices for Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization of NIST’S Existing Facilities

INTRODUCTION

The poor conditions and functional obsolescence described in Chapter 3 could have been caused by any number of factors at work at the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) laboratories, other buildings, and infrastructure. The first half of this chapter explores the possible causes for the unsatisfactory situation. Specifically, it describes the process the committee used to understand how NIST’s facilities have become serious risks to mission performance. First, the chapter lays out a common terminology used in this report. Next, it explains how the committee evaluated the practices that NIST and others employ to plan, program, budget, and execute the funding to sustain, restore, and modernize NIST’s existing infrastructure. It then examines the history of facilities funding for NIST and draws conclusions and recommendations. The second half of the chapter looks at a comprehensive recovery plan prepared by NIST’s Office of Facilities and Property Management (OFPM) beginning in 2020, and at the committee’s evaluation of that plan.

In the course of its work, the committee learned that the root cause of NIST’s unsatisfactory facility situation is over 20 years of inadequate funding of the Construction of Research Facilities (CRF) appropriation. Therefore, the cure proposed by OFPM and endorsed by this chapter is a comprehensive strategy and plan to recover from long-term, inadequate funding of all facility needs funded by CRF: sustainment, restoration, modernization, and expansion, including backlogged needs for expansion to support mission-growth.

TERMINOLOGY

This chapter contains words and phrases that may have different meanings for different readers. Figure 4-1 is a quick, visual reference for the chapter’s intended meanings and relationships among important, but often confused terms. The definitions for such words as used in this chapter can be found in this report’s Appendix E Glossary and are summarized in the following paragraphs.

The definition of sustainment used in this report is “routine maintenance and repair of existing components in existing facilities in order to correct normal deterioration and wear and tear during the various components’ life-cycles.” Sustainment includes regularly scheduled adjustments and inspections, preventive maintenance, emergency and service response, and minor repairs. It also includes major repairs or replacement of facility components (usually accomplished by contract) that are expected to occur periodically throughout the life cycle of facilities. This work includes regular roof replacement, refinishing of wall surfaces, repairing and replacement of

heating and cooling systems, replacing tile and carpeting, and similar types of work. It does not include costs of environmental compliance, facility leases, or other tasks associated with facilities operations (such as custodial services, grounds services, waste disposal, and the provision of central utilities) (DoD 2004).

But sustainment is just one of three types of investments that organizations must make in existing infrastructure in order to keep the facilities and utilities fit for current use. Organizations must also invest, from time to time, in restoring elements of existing facilities “to such a condition that it may be used for its designated purpose. Restoration includes repair or replacement work to restore facilities damaged inadequate sustainment, excessive age, natural disaster, fire, accident, or other causes” (DoD 2004). And existing facilities also must be modernized, from time to time. Modernization means the alteration, or replacement of facilities solely to implement new or higher performance standards, to accommodate new functions, or to replace building components that typically last more than 50 years (such as the framework or foundation)” (DoD 2004). So, this chapter covers all practices related to investing in existing facilities, collectively, calling them Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM).

As Figure 4-1 also shows, the FSRM framework aligns with the current definitions of funding sources that Congress allocates to NIST to invest in FSRM spending: the CRF Appropriation. Figure 4-1 displays the two parts and FSRM coverages of the CRF Appropriation: Construction and Major Renovations (CMR) and Safety, Capacity, Maintenance, and Major Repair (SCMMR). It is important to note that CRF = CMR + SCMMR.

• CMR provides funds for all individual projects to restore and modernize existing facilities. Restoration and modernization can be accomplished by either: (1) repairing, replacing, or altering selected components, systems, and spaces of existing facilities; or (2) replacing entire facilities, that is, replacing all components, systems, and spaces of existing facilities. CMR funds are also used for all projects to expand the physical size (in gross square feet, or GSF) of a portfolio to accommodate staff and program growth (DOC 2023).

• SCMMR provides general funds for all sustainment work as well as for all work and projects for restoration and modernization of existing facilities.

It is noted that NIST does not receive a separate appropriation for facility operations (as defined in the report Glossary and Figure 4-1). Instead, NIST “taxes” its own expenditures of Scientific and Technical Research and Services program funds, as well as Other Agency Contracts funds and other NIST activities in order to fund a NIST account called Institutional Support (IS). CMR and SCMMR expenditures are also taxed for IS. Funds from the IS account are allocated among NIST departments to pay for general administration and support services.

This includes allocations from the IS account to NIST’s OFPM to pay for facility operations, which are managed by OFPM. The committee also notes that NIST currently has no official policy document to guide decisions about which FSRM work can or should be funded with SCMMR funds versus IS funds or user reimbursable funds. When SCMMR was established in fiscal year (FY) 1998, under P.L. 105-119, some sustainment expense (e.g., preventive maintenance labor) was IS-funded and SCMMR funds were used primarily for restoration and modernization projects less than CMR estimated cost. The first instances of sustainment work appearing as SCMMR expenses were related to funding operations and maintenance contracts for newly constructed facilities such as the Gaithersburg Advanced Measurement Laboratory. Over time, the costs of IS-funded sustainment work and facility operations increased beyond NIST’s IS allocations to OFPM. So, to close the gap, OFPM began using SCMMR funds for sustainment and operations such as oversight of a utility energy savings performance contract. As a result, the historical dedication of most SCMMR funds to restoration and modernization projects morphed into dedication of the majority of SCMMR funds to sustainment and operations, leaving less and less SCMMR funds available for restoration and modernization.

In order to provide future clarity on the proper use of SCMMR and IS funds, OFPM now has developed a draft “funding determination” policy document. The document is under review and OFPM has based the FY 2023 budget submission on the draft document’s clean split of using IS funds exclusively for facility operations and using SCMMR funds exclusively for FSRM. This report’s Glossary and this chapter are also based on the same clean split between operations and sustainment funding to be officially established when NIST approves the draft funding determination.

At the time of the committee’s NIST orientation briefing, the chief facilities management officer foretold that $56 million of the FY 2022 SCMMR $80 million appropriation would be committed to annual sustainment expenditures, leaving just $24 million for emerging and backlogged minor restoration and modernization projects of SCMMR scope and for reducing NIST’s $1.5 billion (2022 dollars) backlog of deferred maintenance and repair. Note: according to the National Research Council (NRC) guidance (NRC 1990), the entire $56 million is grossly inadequate for just annual sustainment of NIST facilities alone and that the inadequacy accelerates deterioration, obsolescence, and backlog growth.

Finding 4-1: The lack of consistency in use of financial terms causes confusion in FSRM practices. The most common example of this at NIST is the long-standing, casual use of the term “Construction of Research Facilities (CRF)” in place of “Construction and Major Renovations (CMR).” The former is an appropriation, the latter a sub-category of the former. Financial principles and statements that apply to CRF do not necessarily apply to CMR and vice versa.

Finding 4-2: Common industry phrases such as “operations and maintenance,” “maintenance and repair,” “renovation,” “renewal,” and “replacement” do not uniquely align with the OFPM funding sources “CMR” and “SCMMR.” Consequently, use of industry terms at NIST can cause confusion and sometimes introduce error.

Finding 4-3: At NIST, there has been a long-term inconsistency in definition about which type of sustainment work can or should be funded with SCMMR funds versus IS funds. OFPM has assured the committee that NIST is in the process of establishing unambiguous boundaries between the uses of IS and SCMMR funding. The committee commends NIST for this effort, which should enable OFPM to better document future budget requests in terms of:

• The total amount of CMR funding requested for renovation and replacement of existing facilities
• The total amount of CMR funding requested for portfolio expansion by construction of new facilities and additions to existing facilities
• The total amount of SCMMR funding requested for sustainment of existing facilities
• The total amount of SCMMR funding requested for restoration and modernization of existing facilities
• The total, anticipated amount of IS Tax on CRF (CMR + SCMMR) spending so as to identify the actual funding available to meet CMR and SCMMR requirements

THE SEARCH FOR THE ROOT CAUSE OF NIST’S UNSATISFACTORY FACILITIES SITUATION

The committee sought to discover the root cause of the nation-impacting problem described in Chapter 3 of this report. It first looked for possible subpar performance of internal practices of OFPM (i.e., the policies, procedures, and processes that OFPM has the authority to create and change). Concluding that there is no evidence of any of OFPM’s internal practices, having been the root cause of the unsatisfactory NIST facility situation, the committee then turned its attention to possible subpar performance of practices external to OFPM. External practices include those controlled by other NIST departments, the Department of Commerce (DOC), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and Congress.

The following sections of this chapter contain committee findings and conclusions related to both internal and external practices affecting the sustainment, restoration, and modernization of NIST’s existing facilities. The root cause of the situation is identified, and in the final section, a cure is recommended.

COMMITTEE EVALUATION OF OFPM’S INTERNAL PRACTICES

Identifying possible, problematic OFPM internal practices began with analyzing information the committee had gathered from briefings, site tours, staff interviews, question and answer exchanges, and reviews of written materials furnished by OFPM and others. The remainder of this section presents the committee’s findings and conclusions from the evaluation. Internal practices are presented according to standard FSRM management categories (planning, programming, budgeting, and execution).

OFPM Internal Practices for FSRM Planning and Programming

One of the ultimate purposes of OFPM’s internal practices for planning and programming of FSRM is to create numbers and justifications for budget requests for the CRF appropriation. Another purpose is to create data and information for maintenance management practices like in-house, trade work planning and estimating, and contracting activities.

OFPM’s planning and programming for FSRM of existing facilities begins with identifying and documenting performance deficiencies in facility performance (both physical condition and functionality). Deficiencies of existing facilities are identified by visual inspection of facility condition and by canvassing facility users for functionality issues.

Performance deficiencies are analyzed and metrics computed (e.g., backlog, Facility Condition Index, and Building Condition Index.¹ The scope of needed FSRM work items and projects are then formulated. Consequently, some work items will continue to stand alone while others will be packaged together, if advantageous, for master planning, master plans implementation reports, budgeting, and execution. Then the work items and packages are ranked for further programming using a multi-criteria model weighted 60 percent on criticality of the program(s)

___________________

¹ OFPM is using BUILDER SMS practices and government-off-the-shelf software for facility assessment and generation of FSRM funding requirements. BUILDER SMS produces a variety of metrics including the Building Condition Index. Building Condition Index metrics are included in recurring OFPM facility assessment reports such as “dm_backup_cond_assess_report_FY21_4thQtr final.”

supported by the specific facility to the NIST mission and strategic objectives identified in NIST’s Strategic Plan (see Chapter 2).

Costs of each work item and package are estimated for programming and budgeting purposes and these estimates are used as dollar requirements for NIST budget requests for funds in the CRF appropriation (both CMR funding of major renovation and replacement projects and SCMMR funding for minor restoration and modernization work).

Finding 4-4: OFPM has many good practices for planning and programming the FSRM funding needs of NIST’s existing facilities. However, there is always need for improvement. Appendix A lists best practices that may deserve OFPM’s consideration for improving its practices for planning and programming the FSRM funding needs of existing facilities.

OFPM Internal Practices for Budgeting for FSRM Funds

The collective purpose of FSRM budgeting practices is to obtain funds for satisfying FSRM requirements established by planning and programming. Such budgeting practices include (1) preparing, submitting, and justifying budget requests, and (2) making senior leaders aware of FSRM requirements as well as the specific impacts on NIST’s mission and the nation of not funding FSRM requirements.

Allocating federal funds among various programs is the job of people this chapter calls senior leaders. These are the officials and their staffs in NIST, DOC, OMB, OSTP, and Congress who review competing budget requests, evaluate contending presentations, and try to choose the best way to spread scarce resources—all in a political environment. Even without considering the impact of the COVID pandemic, higher costs and resource constraints have combined to place great pressure on senior leaders. Backlogs of deferred FSRM work on existing facilities are just one class of many pressing public needs. And allocating sufficient funds to address FSRM backlogs reduces the availability of funds for other important, higher visibility requirements totally unrelated to facilities.

Finding 4-5: OFPM has many good practices for preparing and presenting budget requests to fill the need for FSRM funding of existing facilities and making senior leaders aware of those requirements. Improvement may be needed, however, in communicating to senior leaders at NIST, DOC, OMB, OTSP, and Congress the precise, strategic consequences to the nation that result from inadequate FSRM funds. Appendix A lists best practices that deserve OFPM’s consideration for improvement.

OFPM Internal Practices for Execution of FSRM Funds

The collective purpose of OFPM’s internal FSRM execution practices is to make best use of available funds. A few examples of execution practices are prioritizing funded projects and work items, planning and supervising in-house trade work, designing projects, and preparing technical contract specifications.

Finding 4-6: The committee was not tasked to evaluate OFPM’s internal practices for execution of allocated FSRM funds. Nonetheless, there are always opportunities for further improving these types of practices. Appendix A lists best practices that may deserve consideration.

THE SEARCH FOR THE ROOT CAUSE CONTINUES

The committee’s inquiry into internal OFPM practices determined that some improvement might be needed but produced no evidence that internal practices were the root cause of NIST’s unsatisfactory facility situation. It was clear, though, that OFPM has been receiving far less CRF funds for its existing facilities than it requires to keep the facilities fit for use. The committee identified two different types of need for more CRF funds:

1. Substantially increased annual CMR funding to recover from significant mission impairment having critical national consequences. Many large projects are needed to bring the existing facilities portfolio up to modern performance standards (both physical condition and functionality), and to expand the physical size and capability of NIST’s facilities portfolio to accommodate staff and research program growth. This portfolio renewal and expansion would have to consider: (a) new construction of swing space in Gaithersburg to allow staff to continue performing mission functions during the renewal and expansion of existing facilities, (b) replacement of existing facilities, where justified, in lieu of renovating existing facilities, plus (c) demolition of replaced facilities in order to reduce FSRM backlogs and future FSRM needs.
2. Greatly increased annual SCMMR funding to sustain existing facilities, return aged, damaged, and obsolete individual components to fitness for current use and to prevent further backlog growth. Additional SCMMR funds will be required to continually sustain, restore, and modernize new and enlarged facilities in the years after expansion.

The above-stated realizations led the committee back to the questions of the root cause of NIST’s current, unsatisfactory facility situation and what is needed to get back on track. This prompted the committee to move its investigation onto two new lines: (1) NIST’s history of FSRM funding; and (2) FSRM planning, programming, budgeting, and execution practices external to OFPM.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF NIST FSRM FUNDING

The NIST Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology (VCAT) was established by federal law in 1988 and has been functioning ever since. It is currently re-chartered by the Secretary of Commerce in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 278 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended. The VCAT reviews and makes recommendations regarding general policy for NIST, its organization, its budget, and its programs, within the framework of applicable national policies set forth by the President and Congress (VCAT 2022).

For 34 years, the VCAT has been Congress’s eyes and ears at NIST. The VCAT provides an annual report, through the NIST director, to the Secretary of Commerce. The secretary submits the VCAT report to Congress within 30 days after the submittal to Congress of the President’s annual budget request.

VCAT’s 2002 Annual Report warned about the then-poor and worsening physical condition and waning functionality of NIST’s existing facilities and characterized the funding situation as “alarming” and “critical” (VCAT 2002). The 2002 report made a serious appeal for adequate funding “to be able to meet national needs and continue to provide excellent, [irreplaceable] service to the Nation with its research” (VCAT 2002, p. 1). The report also stated that “chronic underfunding of the Safety, Capacity, Maintenance, and Major Repair (SCMMR) budget has resulted in a deferred backlog … that will predictably lead to serious interruptions of NIST’s research and expose staff to increased safety risks” (VCAT 2002, p. 3).

Every year since 2002, VCAT has repeatedly and consistently reported an accelerating decline of NIST’s facilities. The reports all spelled out weighty, strategic consequences to NIST’s declining mission performance and the increasingly negative impact on the nation’s economic health and security. The committee then learned that 20 years of similar VCAT reports have not resulted in adequately increased FSRM funding for existing facilities. For instance, VCAT’s 2020 annual report stated:

The report also stated that:

But, again, VCAT’s 2020 report produced no appreciable funding action, such as an increase in the President’s budget request for CRF or an increase in its appropriation. Then, more than a year ago, the March 4, 2021, VCAT letter to the Secretary of Commerce stated unequivocally that “NIST’s maintenance budget is insufficient to address its crumbling infrastructure.” The VCAT also reported that NIST’s deteriorated and obsolete facilities are seriously impacting vital research and, in turn, placing the nation’s economy and security in harm’s way (VCAT 2021). The committee believes that VCAT’s phrase “maintenance budget” is a euphemism for NIST’s CRF appropriation (SCMMR plus major CMR projects for renovation and modernization).

The 2021 VCAT letter again called for the federal government to renew its commitment and to invest resources in NIST’s existing facilities for the good of the nation (VCAT 2021). Of serious concern to the committee is the fact that VCAT has been sounding the same clarion call for 20 years, since 2002, with little apparent response from the federal government. Consequently, the state of inadequate facilities funding that VCAT characterized in 2002 as “alarming” and “critical” has persisted and by 2021, produced “crumbling” facilities that prevent NIST from conducting current state-of-the-art science.

Chapter 3 of this report finds that, in FY 2022, the physical condition and functionality of NIST’s existing facilities have degraded and become far worse than described in VCAT’s 2002 report. Since 2001, the backlog of deferred maintenance and repair (M&R) has doubled, the backlog of deferred restoration and modernization projects also has sky-rocketed, and scientists and other users of the facilities are quick to provide rich anecdotal evidence of facility issues resulting in significant negative impacts on mission performance and the nation’s economy and security.

Figure 4-2 shows NIST’s CRF funding history beginning in 2001. For meaningful comparison, the committee converted then-year dollars (provided by OFPM) to 2022 dollars by applying appropriately compounded nonresidential building cost indices (Construction Analytics 2022). Figure 4-2 confirms the following points:

• In 2002, SCMMR funding (for FSRM of existing facilities) was $45 million (in 2022 dollars), and there was no funding in 2001 or 2002 for major CMR restoration or modernization projects. 2002 was the year

• that VCAT first reported an “alarming” and “critical” situation due to seven previous years of significant underfunding (starting in 1995). VCAT called the 2002 SCMMR equivalent of $45 million in 2022 dollars “inadequate” for the 2002 situation, which at that time involved 30- to 40-year-old facilities. Also in 2002, VCAT made the first of many serious appeals for adequate funding.
• From 2002 to 2022 the funding streams for both SCMMR and major CMR projects for restoration and modernization have proven inadequate. Some years even witnessed decreasing CRF allocations despite increases in portfolio size and complexity due to recent new construction and despite repeated VCAT recommendations for greatly increased SCMMR and CMR restoration and modernization funding. The only exceptions were several years of funding growth for both (1) FSRM activities, and (2) new construction to support program expansions with added gross square feet such as the AML, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act era expansions and the Mini-infrastructure Program B45 and B1.
• Not evident in Figure 4-2 is that certain NIST decisions, external to OFPM, have decreased the amounts of appropriated CRF funding available for FSRM spending. In 2012 the purchase power of the CRF appropriation decreased when NIST, for the first time, assessed an IS tax on spending for both SCMMR and CMR at the rate of 1 percent. Later, the tax was increased to 1.5 percent and in FY 2021, the IS tax rate for SCMMR and CMR spending was increased from 1.5 percent to 4.5 percent. Funds from the IS account are allocated among NIST departments to pay for general administration and support services. This includes allocations from the IS account to NIST’s OFPM to pay for facility operations, which are managed by OFPM. The allocation to OFPM is less than the tax paid on CRF spending so there’s a net loss of CRF purchasing power.
• The current FY 2022 FSRM funding situation is even worse than just described. At first glance, $80 million for FY 2022 SCMMR funding seems an improvement over the $45 million (2022 dollars) of 2002 SCMMR funding. However, in 2002 (and during a few subsequent years) most SCMMR funds were available to OFPM for emerging restoration and modernization needs and backlog reduction because the IS account paid for sustainment work. Over time, as facilities deteriorated and became more obsolete, SCMMR paid for increasingly more sustainment, leaving less and less SCMMR funds to pay for FSRM backlog reduction and emerging restoration and modernization. In FY 2022, $56.3 million of the $80 million SCMMR budget will be used for sustainment, leaving just $33.7 million for restoration and modernization and backlog reduction. Compared to $45 million of equivalent SCMMR funding in FY 2002, the $33.7 million in FY 2022 amounts to a 25 percent reduction in SCMMR funding available for restoration and modernization.
• For at least 20 years now, total annual SCMMR budget allocations have remained far below NRC’s recommended absolute minimum funding for routine M&R (sustainment) of federal facilities. NRC recommends a routine M&R annual budget comprised of two elements: (1) an “absolute minimum” sustainment funding 2-4 percent of then-year, aggregate Current Replacement Value (CRV), plus (2) additional funding for reducing any backlog of needed M&R (NRC 1990). In addition to funding for routine M&R and reduction of deferred M&R, the annual SCMMR budget allocation would need to include additional funding for emerging, new modernization needs as well as for reducing any backlog of deferred modernization. The FY 2022 total CRF allocation of just $80 million for all SCMMR needs is significantly below OFPM’s estimated requirement of $115 million² for routine M&R (sustainment) alone, with no funds allocated for deferred M&R backlog reduction, deferred modernization backlog reduction, or emerging modernization requirements. OFPM now estimates that the annual total CRF requirement is approximately $550 million ($425 million CMR + $125 million SCMMR) over each of 12 consecutive years in order to recover from the many previous years of inadequate investment (see section below titled “OFPM Consolidated Recovery Plan: $420 Million to $550 Million Annually”).

___________________

² The NRC recommendation applies only to public buildings, not to land or major associated infrastructure. The committee believes that the annual, routine maintenance and repair of NIST’s utility infrastructure would cost more than the annual, routine maintenance and repair of NIST’s laboratories and admin buildings. However, in the absence of a different rule of thumb for utility infrastructure, the committee is willing to stipulate that 2-4 percent of infrastructure CRV is a satisfactory rule for purposes of this report.

Finding 4-7: Enacted SCMMR funding of $80 million for FY 2022 provides 25 percent less equivalent SCMMR funding for restoration and modernization than for FY 2002, the year that VCAT reported to Congress that funding was “grossly inadequate.” The 20 intervening years of repeated and significant underfunding of FSRM requirements have compounded the initially poor FY 2002 situation leading to higher rates of deterioration, accelerated obsolescence and a more costly recovery requirement in FY 2022 and beyond.

Having learned about the history of FSRM funding, the committee turned its attention to possible subpar performance of the external FSRM funding practices of NIST and DOC. Further committee research led to several possibly problematic practices prescribed by higher bureaucratic levels and outside OFPM’s authority to change.

After a closer look at the external suspects, the committee dismissed a few as inconsequential, but others appeared to have potential as root causes of NIST’s unsatisfactory facility situation. Further review led the committee to identify one as the actual root cause and others to be contributors. The next section of this report describes the findings and conclusions of this review of external practices.

FSRM FUNDING PRACTICES EXTERNAL TO OFPM

According to the American Institute of Physics, “NIST’s research budget rose 5 percent to $788 million for FY 2021, with much of the increase directed to quantum information science and artificial intelligence research. NIST’s facilities construction and maintenance budget was cut by one-third to $80 million” (emphasis added by the committee) (AIP 2021).

Then, the FY 2022 Budget Request went to Congress containing $916 million to expand NIST’s scientific and technological research—an increase of $128 million over the FY 2021 enacted level. In apparent support of this proposed increased investment in the nation’s science and technology capabilities, the FY 2022 Budget Request also proposed NIST CRF funding of $140 million, representing an increase of $60 million over the FY 2021 enacted level. The final FY 2022 CRF appropriation enacted in March came in even higher, at $206 million, and in the range of OFPM’s estimate of requirement. However, Congress specified that $126 million of the CRF appropriation was earmarked for seven “NIST extramural construction” projects that are not federal facilities and whose funding does nothing for the NIST facility situation. So, NIST CRF requirements for FY 2022 continued to be funded at the inadequate $80 million level.

The FY 2023 Budget Request for NIST CRF submitted to Congress in late March 2022 was $120.3 million, 50 percent higher than the FY 2021 and FY 2022 enacted levels, but again, far below both VCAT’s and OFPM’s estimate of requirement. The requested amount is also inadequate because it represents just over 4 percent of CRV and, therefore, would not include annual, research-driven restoration and modernization needs or reduction of the FSRM backlog.

Additionally, NIST senior leadership has recently transferred responsibility for NIST’s IT network infrastructure, along with the network’s deferred maintenance backlog and expansion requirements from its previous NIST sponsor to OFPM. Obviously, this unfunded transfer has further reduced OFPM’s ability to execute needed SCMMR work within SCMMR funding constraints.

Finding 4-8: NIST’s historically inadequate CRF appropriations for facility FSRM requirements are falling further behind in their ability to support the FSRM requirements demanded by NIST’s research programs.

CLOSING IN ON A CAUSE AND A CURE

The committee believes that the solution to NIST’s unsatisfactory facility situation requires both immediate, top-down attention and resolute action by leaders of NIST, DOC, OMB, and Congress. The solution also demands continuation of improvements in OFPM’s bottom-up communication of quality data, analysis, and insights to policy officials within the executive branch and Congress.

However, the past 20 years and more at NIST have shown that excellent bottom-up data, insight, and communication, while necessary, are not always sufficient to motivate senior leaders to invest adequately in facility

FSRM. VCAT characterizes the NIST situation as a failure of senior leadership in organizations above NIST, not of NIST itself. Accordingly, VCAT called for action by senior government officials, not by NIST.

This top-down emphasis is logical and aligns with VCAT’s 2021 recommendation. Since the committee determined that OFPM has the capability to correct the challenges given adequate funding, the committee believes greater investment in NIST facilities and utilities infrastructure ideally begins with the FY 2023 CRF appropriation and immediate actions by NIST to improve its communication to policy officials regarding the potential strategic impacts of various CRF funding levels. It is vital that NIST communicate more effectively to decision makers and senior leaders the mission impacts of the physical condition and functionality of its facilities to ensure they fully understand the agency’s current and future capabilities. Poor physical conditions and impaired functionality impacts NIST’s technical capabilities and creates profound risks in meeting critical domestic needs, enhancing international competitiveness, and supporting national security. The situation has already created real negative economic and security impacts as discussed in Chapter 2 and Appendixes C and D and the impacts will get worse if the facilities situation is not addressed effectively promptly.

Of late, there appears to be an awakening to the problem at governmental levels above NIST. For example, the FY 2019 OMB and OSTP guidance memo issued to all agencies regarding R&D budget priorities stated: “Maintaining and modernizing research infrastructure is critical to getting the best value out of R&D investments.” In addition, the FY 2021 conference appropriations report directed NIST to contract with an independent entity to develop a report that assesses the comprehensive capital needs and costs of NIST’s campuses.

Also highly significant is DOC’s 2021 direction and NIST’s 300-person, two campus-wide, year-long collaboration to develop a different and more ambitious multi-billion-dollar 2022 Infrastructure Plan to replace NIST’s just-updated, but too modest 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report as the road map for the NIST recovery from the unsatisfactory facility situation. This new NIST draft 2022 Infrastructure Plan is also called the “OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization: $300 Million to $400 Million Annually (CMR funded).” It is described and evaluated below in the section of that name.

Finding 4-9: Past budget requests submitted by the President to Congress seek funding for only fractions of OFPM’s estimated requirements. Additionally, CRF appropriations are being used to fund the construction of non-NIST “extramural” facilities including unrelated university laboratories, as mentioned above, to the detriment of the poor physical condition and functionality of NIST’s existing facilities.

Finding 4-10: The transfer to OFPM of responsibility for NIST IT infrastructure places an additional strain on FSRM funding and on NIST’s unsatisfactory facility situation.

Conclusion 4-1: NIST’s current, unsatisfactory facility situation results directly from more than 20 years of inadequate federal government investment in the normal, expected, and necessary FSRM of the institute’s aged and aging laboratories, offices, and utilities infrastructure. A significant investment will be required for NIST to recover from the adverse situation.

Conclusion 4-2: NIST’s poor and worsening facility situation has so far, and unless resolved, will continue to prevent its world-class³ scientists from realizing the institute’s full mission potential to the great detriment of the nation’s security and economic competitiveness. If NIST is to help the nation face current and coming challenges with the economy, the environment, and national security, a sizable investment in recovery of NIST’s facilities and utilities infrastructure is essential. It is imperative that senior leadership of DOC, OMB, OSTP, and the Congressional Appropriations Committees hasten to work in concert to resolve the situation.

Recommendation 4-1: NIST and DOC leadership should ensure that the leadership of DOC, OMB, OSTP, and the House and Senate Appropriations and Oversight Committees are fully aware of NIST’s facility needs and the national consequences of not meeting those needs. So that OMB, OSTP, and

___________________

³ This report uses “world-class” in the sense of being among the best in the world.

Congress can fully support NIST in recovering from its unsatisfactory facility situation, NIST and DOC should also consider:

• Establishing practices that prevent or fully mitigate the diversion of appropriated NIST CRF funds to non-NIST organizations and to other non-FSRM purposes within NIST (e.g., IS taxation for CRF spending and the burdensome insertion of IT network requirements into the CRF budget).
• Requiring semi-annual follow-up verification and accountability from NIST to ensure that adequate funding is provided and implemented for annual sustainment, restoration, and modernization requirements, and that increased annual investments in CRF backlog reduction and FSRM of NIST’s existing facilities are spent as intended and optimize their return in terms of meeting the nation’s economic and security challenges.

Recommendation 4-2: NIST should improve its communication of the impacts on taxpayers and consumers of inadequate appropriations of CRF funding. To make its CRF budget justifications and other communications more compelling and accurate, greater input and collaboration is necessary from NIST scientists, facilities officials, and budget and communications staff, working together.

GENESIS OF OFPM’S DRAFT COORDINATED RECOVERY PLAN FOR EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE

2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report

In October 2020, NIST concluded its most recent routine updating of campus facilities master planning by formally submitting to Congress the congressionally mandated NIST 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report. NIST’s chief facilities management officer briefed this 2020 Report to the committee in February 2022. The 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report consisted of 11 prioritized CMR-funded projects and 11 prioritized SCMMR-funded projects. All projects were drawn from NIST’s Maryland and Colorado Master Plans, which had been previously approved by the NIST director in 2018 and 2017, respectively, and were supposed to project needs through 2040.

The 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report called for a capital investment strategy of coordinated CMR and SCMMR projects, funding streams, and schedules. An annual CMR funding stream of $80 million would allow completion of 11 top-priority CMR projects in 26 years for a total cost of $2.03 billion, and an annual SCMMR funding stream of $7 million would complete 11 top-priority SCMMR projects in 16 years for a total cost of $95 million. The 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report also offered an alternative, lower cost, and longer duration capital investment strategy consisting of an annual CMR funding stream of $60 million to allow completion of 11 top-priority CMR projects in 34 years for a total cost of $2.51 billion, and an annual SCMMR funding stream of $5 million to complete 11 top-priority SCMMR projects in 22 years for a total cost of $106 million. The report also described other potential projects but did not call for their funding or schedule their implementation. The NIST 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report was the product of NIST’s traditional master planning practice and organization. It was supposed to set the road map for the next 20 to 30 years of NIST capital projects program.

The chief facilities management officer’s February briefing to this committee was based on the 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report and its $2 billion, 26- to 33-year schedules as one of the two prongs of OFPM’s proposed “2-pronged approach” to recovery from NIST’s current unsatisfactory facility situation. The second prong was, and remains, what this report refers to as OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Stabilization: $120 Million to $150 Million Annually (SCMMR-funded).

2022 Draft NIST Infrastructure Plan

In April 2021, just 6 months after NIST had submitted its traditionally produced, 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report to Congress, DOC directed NIST to develop a different and more ambitious multibillion-dollar draft 2022 Infrastructure Plan. DOC presumably wanted to replace the 2020 Integrated Master Plans

Implementation Report with a bigger, better, and quicker 2022 Infrastructure Plan as the 20-year road map for the NIST capital projects program.

The new draft 2022 Infrastructure Plan that OFPM subsequently created consists of 30 projects drawn partially from NIST’s 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report, but mostly from a separate NIST Research Building Modernization Program developed during 2021-2022. The Research Building Modernization Program, and its resulting draft 2022 Infrastructure Plan, were created outside NIST’s traditional master planning process, which was historically managed by a 2-person master planning team: staff plus contract architects and engineers. To respond to DOC’s direction, NIST mobilized an ad hoc, 26-member OFPM team and enlisted participation of nearly 300 NIST facility users—researchers and their support staffs.

NIST’s new draft 2022 Infrastructure Plan calls for much more and remarkably faster “science-first” laboratory modernization spending than the traditional 2020 Master Plans Implementation Report: 30 CMR-funded major projects at $300-$400 million per year over 12 years for the draft 2022 Infrastructure Plan compared to the 2020 Master Plans Implementation Report’s 11 CMR projects at $60-$80 million per year over 26-33 years plus 11 SCMMR projects at $5-$7 million per year over 16-22 years.

In June 2022, NIST’s CFMO briefed an overview of NIST current and future facility and infrastructure needs to Representative Matt Cartwright (8th District PA), Chairman of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee for the 117th Congress. The local Representative, David Trone (6th District MD), also attended the briefing. Table 4-1 is the overview of NIST facility and infrastructure needs briefed to the Representatives.

The first line of Table 4-1 represents NIST’s new draft 2022 Infrastructure Plan and displays the same annual CMR funding requirement of that plan. The second line of Table 4-1 represents OFPM’S current draft estimate of the total annual SCMMR funding requirement needed in coordination with CMR funding. The third line, of course, is the total annual CRF funding requirement that OFPM currently believes to be the solution to NIST’s unsatisfactory facility situation.

The committee, with OFPM concurrence, refers to Table 4-1 (along with all the related info OFPM has provided to the committee) as “OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan for Existing Facilities” (“The Recovery Plan,” or “2022 Infrastructure Plan” for short). The committee, again with OFPM concurrence, refers to the first and second lines of Table 4-1 (along with all the related info OFPM has provided about each line) as “OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization (CMR-funded),” and “OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Stabilization (SCMMR-funded).” The committee also understands that the information in Table 4-1, as well as all the related information OFPM has provided to the committee, is a work in progress and subject to change.

THE COMMITTEE’S UNDERSTANDING OF OFPM’S DRAFT COORDINATED RECOVERY PLAN

Table 4-2 is an expanded summary of the committee’s understanding of OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan for Existing Facilities as depicted in Table 4-1. The committee’s understanding of The Recovery Plan and its two sub-plans are further described in detail in the paragraphs following Table 4-2. The committee’s detailed evaluation of The Recovery Plan and its two sub-plans is described in the next section of this report.

TABLE 4-1 Overview of NIST Facility and Infrastructure Funding Needs

NOTE: CRF funding is the sum of CMR and SCMMR funding.

SOURCE: OFPM Point Paper “NIST Facilities Summary for Representative Trone, June 2022.”

TABLE 4-2 Summary of Committee Understanding of OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan

SOURCE: OFPM Point Paper “NIST Facilities Summary for Representative Trone, June 2022.”

OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan identifies the annual CMR and SCMMR funding requirements for making existing NIST facilities fit for use by 2033. (This report calls it a “coordinated” report to signify the necessary, managed relationship between amounts of annual CMR and SCMMR funding requirements over time.) OFPM’s vision is to improve facilities conditions and functionality while at the same time funding its major modernization program. It has proposed this two-pronged, coordinated approach to funding.

Experience shows that allocated annual funding addresses only deferred maintenance or only expansion or renovation work, but not both. A balanced, two-pronged approach to sustaining facilities while updating them to modern research standards is vital. Not having such a balanced approach only invites failure in the end.

The purpose of OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan is to arrest, stabilize, and recover from NIST’s mission impairment and the injurious national consequence due to chronic, subpar facility performance. The Recovery Plan proposes a total funding (2022 dollars) of approximately $6.6 billion. Total annual CRF funding would be in the range of $420-$550 million (2022 dollars), depending on the number and types of CMR projects scheduled and completed in a given year, and on the amount of the following year’s SCMMR requirement (based on emerging FSRM needs and backlog remaining upon completion of the previous years’ CMR and SCMMR projects). The estimated dollar amounts of proposed funding are stated in 2022 $US.

OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan is comprised of two, parallel and linked strategies and corresponding sub-plans: “Recapitalization” and “Stabilization.” The Sub-Plan for Recapitalization proposes at least 12 years of $300-$400 million “annual sustainable CMR funding” for the purpose of expeditiously providing mission capability that was eroded by more than 20 years of unfunded FSRM needs. The CFMO briefed Congress that these projects would “future-proof research spaces for flexibility, enterprise, and research IT needs.” OFPM also asserts that “the projects align with 17 of the 18 congressional research priorities in NIST’s FY 2022 appropriations.”

The Sub-Plan for Stabilization proposes at least 12 years of $120-$150 million “annual sustainable SCMMR funding” for the purpose of arresting and stabilizing the effects of further physical deterioration and functional obsolescence, and for preventing additional accumulation of new backlogs of deferred FSRM funding requirements, both deferred M&R and deferred restoration and modernization. “Stabilization” includes SCMMR funds for annual routine maintenance and repair of existing facilities while those facilities await their turn for recapitalization action,

if needed and planned. “Stabilization” also includes SCMMR funds to meet anticipated annual requirements for “band-aid” restoration and modernization work.

The committee understands that OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan assumes that:

• Annual inflation on 2022-dollar estimated costs is 0 percent for 2023 and 2024 and 3 percent per year thereafter
• Proposed funding amounts include the cost of design, construction, commissioning, furnishings, and non-program equipment
• Proposed funding amounts also include dollars to pay NIST’s IS tax on expended CRF funds at the rate of 4.5 percent
• CRF funding be used exclusively for NIST facilities sustainment, restoration, and modernization, expansion, replacement, and divestiture
• Total annual costs for FSRM of existing IT infrastructure recovery will not be paid by the CRF appropriation

Committee Evaluation of OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan

The committee evaluated both prongs of OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan: the Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization: $300-$400 million Annually (CMR-funded) and the Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Stabilization: $120-$150 million Annually (SCMMR-funded). This section presents the committee’s findings and conclusions from both evaluations.

Committee Evaluation of OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization (CMR-funded)

This section summarizes the committee’s evaluation of OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization. More evaluation detail can be found in Chapter 5.

The Sub-Plan for Recapitalization calls for a total CMR investment of $5.125 billion (2022 dollars). This total includes (1) $2.14 billion to renovate 12 existing facilities, (2) $1.295 billion to renovate and expand 6 existing facilities plus the Gaithersburg Central Utilities Plant and utility distribution system, (3) $1.31 billion to expand 8 existing facilities, and (4) $380 million to replace an existing laboratory and 3 existing support facilities. See Table 4-3.

The 11 CMR projects and 11 SCMMR projects from the old 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report are included in the new draft 2022 infrastructure plan, but former project scopes, rankings, phasing, and cost estimates have changed due to further development and improvement by significant, year-long iterative deliberations among 26 OFPM team members and 300 NIST researchers who depend on facility support. For example, the 4th ranked candidate project on the 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report (B221 Renovation & Addition) is not even a “top-10 priority” on the 2022 draft Infrastructure Plan.

Annual CMR investments proposed by OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization range from $300-$400 million (2022 dollars). See Table 4-4.

Finding 4-11: At $1,500 to $2,400 per GSF, the preliminary cost estimates of OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization (CMR-funded) seemed high. Therefore, the committee compared several NIST preliminary estimates with similar laboratories in industry. Comparisons of preliminary estimates were within 6 percent of each other, when assumptions and inclusions such as demolition, site work, IS Tax and contingencies were sorted out and clarified. The committee also determined that the preliminary cost estimates were within the broad ranges of preliminary cost estimates for similar facilities in industry. See Chapter 5 for details.

OFPM apparently does not fully document backlog of deferred restoration and modernization requirements (which would use both SCMMR and CMR funds). It also appears that OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization may not provide for the divestiture (e.g., demolition) of all facilities that would be replaced under the Recovery Plan. The possible missing divestiture of replaced facilities may be a major gap in OFPM’s Coordinated

TABLE 4-3 Details of OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization (CMR-funded)

SOURCE: OFPM, NIST.

TABLE 4-4 Annual Investments for OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization

Recovery Plan. Divestiture of replaced facilities is essential for reduction of backlog and future FSRM costs and for achieving satisfactory return on investment in the Coordinated Recovery Plan.

OFPM has already tasked its architects and engineers to prepare documents called programs of requirements for most projects on the new draft 2022 Infrastructure Plan (Sub-Plan for Recapitalization). The CFMO anticipates that $3 billion worth of projects, complying with the programs of requirements, will be ready to turnover to design-build contractors by the end of FY 2022 in the event of major recovery funding. NIST’s senior leadership will meet in Fall 2022 to conclusively determine the future of the draft 2022 Infrastructure Plan. The ultimate decision setting the path forward will be made by the NIST Director and communicated to Congress in the same manner that the now-defunct 2020 Integrated Master Plans Implementation Report was submitted to Congress almost 2 years ago.

Finding 4-12: In OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan, the effect of assumed inflation rates on proposed costs and length of the recovery period is unclear and possibly over-stated. Additionally, the assumed rates do not align with current construction industry forecasts of 8 to 25 percent per annum.

Conclusion 4-3: In order to recover from significant, existing facility-induced mission impairment having injurious national consequence, OFPM believes the nation needs to invest a minimum of $5.125 billion in NIST CMR funding over at least the next 12 years (see Table 4-4). OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization (CMR-funded) would generally achieve this purpose. However, the sub-plan needs further refinement in order to clarify its proposed scope, total amount of required investment, and the possible effects of inflation on the investment amount and length of the recovery period. The committee further concludes that areas of possible improvement of OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization include the following:

• Renovating and retaining existing facilities when shown to be more economically and practically advantageous than replacing and demolishing them
• Scheduling and funding to re-purpose, demolish or otherwise divest facilities replaced by The Recovery Plan, thereby minimizing post-recovery SCMMR requirements
• Fine-tuning preliminary cost estimates as project development proceeds from preliminary to final
• Ensuring sufficient SCMMR funds are budgeted to sustain renovated and replaced facilities after commissioning and occupancy
• Considering implementing the best practices for laboratories described in Appendix B

Conclusion 4-4: It appears to the committee that OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization could achieve its purpose with a total CMR investment of around $5.125 billion over a 12-year period. Annual sustainable CMR funding would have to be in the range of $300-$400 million (2022 dollars), depending on the number of CMR projects scheduled in a given year. This conclusion is based on the following assumptions:

• OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Stabilization (SCMMR-funded) will be fully funded.
• CMR funding would be spent on blanket replacement of existing facilities when it can be shown that blanket replacement is more economical or acquires more research space faster than renovation of existing facilities, or both.
• Project estimates will include sufficient funding for project design, contracting, commissioning, IS Tax and other markups, as required by DOC.
• After FY 2022, annual investment requests related to OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization (CMR-funded) are appropriately increased to reflect actual reduction of the dollar’s buying power due to actual inflation rates.

Committee Evaluation of OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Stabilization (SCMMR-funded)

OFPM’s Stabilization Sub-Plan calls for $120-$150 million (2022 dollars) of annual SCMMR funding during the period 2023 thru 2033 and beyond. The committee believes that these estimated annual costs may be grossly under-stated due to three factors:

The minimum annual dollar amount of the Sub-Plan for Stabilization ($120 million) appears to have been

calculated by using NRC funding guidance (NRC 1990) as the only component of total, minimum required SCMMR funding. The NRC guidance states that an appropriate budget allocation for routine maintenance and repair (sustainment) will typically be in the range of 2 to 4 percent of the portfolio’s aggregate CRV.⁴

Given the complexity, age, and state of disrepair of NIST’s existing facilities, 4 percent of CRV would seem to be a conservative SCMMR budget minimum for anticipated annual funding needs for routine maintenance and repair (sustainment). However, the NRC guidance specifically states that the 2 to 4 percent CRV is an absolute minimum for annual routine maintenance and repair, and that annual spending for other purposes must exceed that minimum amount. Examples of “spending for other purposes” include backlog reduction and emerging new restoration or modernization needs, or both.

The effect of assumed inflation rates in OFPM’s Sub-Plan for Stabilization on proposed costs and recovery times is unclear. Additionally, the assumed rates (0 percent for 2 years and 3 percent thereafter) do not align with current construction industry forecasts of 8 to 25 percent per annum or with OFPM’s 5 percent annual inflation adjustment for CRV (which is NIST’s sole basis for escalating CRV).

Counter-balancing the possible understatement of annual minimum cost of OFPM’s draft Sub-Plan for Stabilization (SCMMR-funded) is the important feature of the balanced, 2-prong approach to recovery planning. SCMMR funding does not have to include additional dollars for all NIST backlog reduction because approximately half the planned reduction of total deferred M&R backlog would be funded by the Sub-Plan for Recapitalization (CMR-funded), provided replaced facilities are divested from the portfolio.

Nonetheless, the committee believes that the annual minimum amount based on the 4 percent of CRV level of the Sub-Plan for Stabilization (SCMMR-funded) does not include the necessary additional funding for (a) new or minor renewal work anticipated to emerge in the coming budget year; (b) systematically reducing the backlog of deferred sustainment, restoration, and modernization; (c) paying the 4.5 percent IS tax on SCMMR spending; and (d) spending for minimum requirements of the IT network infrastructure program until funding of such requirements with CRF funds is rescinded, as this committee recommends.

Conclusion 4-5: The proposed cost of OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Stabilization (SCMMR-funded) may be grossly under-stated due to OFPM misinterpretation of NRC guidance (NRC 1990) and use of less-than-adequate inflation rates.

Conclusion 4-6: OFPM’s Draft Recovery Sub-Plan for Stabilization would generally achieve the purpose of providing significant annual SCMMR funding to arrest and stabilize critical physical deterioration and functional obsolescence while facilities await planned recapitalization action. However, the Sub-Plan for Stabilization needs further refinement in order to clarify its proposed scope, total amount of needed investment, and the possible effects of inflation on the investment amount. The committee also concludes that a beneficial refinement of the Sub-Plan for Stabilization would include focusing SCMMR funds on preventing new backlog growth from emerging FSRM requirements and on reduction of backlog on facilities, systems, and components. Whenever possible, the consolidation and packaging of miscellaneous minor restoration and modernization requirements for economic accomplishment by CMR funding would be helpful.

Conclusion 4-7: It appears to the committee that OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Stabilization (SCMMR-funded) could begin achieving its purpose with an initial SCMMR FY 2023 investment of $150 million (2022 dollars). Thereafter, the annual SCMMR investment would need to be adjusted over the period of OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization as replacement facilities come online and the degraded facilities they replace are divested from the NIST portfolio. See Chapter 6 for a discussion of post-recovery SCMMR requirements. This conclusion assumes that:

___________________

⁴ OFPM advises the committee that OFPM’s definition of Plant Replacement Value (PRV) is the same as NRC’s definition of CRV.

1. OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization (CMR-funded) proposing $300-$400 million annually, is fully funded.
2. Most SCMMR funding will be spent on facilities not awaiting renovation or replacement under OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Recapitalization, and there will be controls to limit SCMMR spending on facilities that are awaiting planned renovation or replacement.
3. After FY 2022 and thru the recovery period, annual investment amounts of OFPM’s Recovery Sub-Plan for Stabilization are appropriately adjusted to reflect reduction of the dollar’s buying power due to actual inflation rates.

COMMITTEE OVERALL CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR RECOVERY FROM NIST’S UNSATISFACTORY FACILITIES SITUATION

Conclusion 4-8: Root cause analysis of NIST’s current facility condition and significant deferred maintenance backlog suggests several challenges: a systemic failure to fund the existing portfolio’s annual operations and maintenance needs, poor alignment between research program needs and the associated facilities to support those programs, and existing facilities that no longer meet research requirements or have exceeded their useful life.

Conclusion 4-9: OFPM has a good Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan as well as the capability to execute it, if significantly more CFR funds are appropriated. What is missing is a national commitment for a sizeable investment in NIST’s failing facilities and utilities infrastructure. Even if appropriated, the recent CHIPs and Science Act Title II authorization for NIST CRF would fall far short of the need. The draft Coordinated Recovery Plan calls for total annual CRF funding of $420-$550 million, but CHIPS would provide only $200 million per year, if appropriated. CHIPS funding would help, but it would provide less than half of the total annual funding requirement of OFPM’s Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan, as described, evaluated, and endorsed (with provisos) in this report.

Recommendation 4-3: NIST and DOC should increase and intensify efforts to advocate that Congress invest fully in NIST’s Coordinated Recovery Plan beginning in FY 2023 to restore NIST’s existing portfolio to a functional status while continually updating the Recovery Plan. NIST and DOC should annually ensure that the Recovery Plan’s annual investment amounts and NIST budget requests are appropriately adjusted to reflect actual and projected inflation rates as well as refined cost estimates.

Recommendation 4-4: OFPM should continue refining and updating its Draft Coordinated Recovery Plan. The purpose of such continued refinement would be to ensure that every year going forward reflects the latest inflation rates and collectively addresses all categories of funding requirements in a coordinated combination of CMR projects and SCMMR-funded work.

Recommendation 4-5: OFPM’s entire NIST Coordinated Recovery Plan, both the Sub-Plan for Recapitalization (CMR-funded) and the Sub-Plan for Stabilization (SCMMR-funded), should be approved and fully funded beginning in FY 2023, subject to continuing refinement.

CONCLUSION

There is a serious problem of national concern traceable to NIST’s unsatisfactory facility situation. OFPM uses internal financial and facility management practices that have not created the situation. The root cause of this troubling situation is at least 20 years of inadequate federal government funding for the sustainment, restoration, and modernization of NIST’s aging and outdated facilities. Correcting the situation now requires $5 billion over at least 12 years, not counting inflation. OFPM has a workable Coordinated Recovery Plan and is capable of employing it upon receipt of sufficient and consistent funding.

REFERENCES