6
Sustainable Ownership Strategies for NIST’s Facility Portfolio
A PROACTIVE OWNERSHIP STRATEGY
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 2020-2025 Strategic Plan—now incorporated into the 2022 Department of Commerce (DOC) Strategic Plan—contains a goal to “create the infrastructure for a 21st century research institution (and ensure that NIST) has both the physical and IT [information technology] infrastructure to carry out its programs” (NIST 2020). To accomplish this, the organization will need to shift from a reactive ownership strategy to one that proactively identifies, funds, and maintains facilities and infrastructure with the same passion and intensity with which it approaches its research missions. A proactive facility asset management program has the following elements, which are discussed in detail in this chapter:
- Program Requirements: Identify new facility and infrastructure total cost of ownership needs for all funding categories concurrent with new research objectives.
- Total Cost of Ownership: Fund the existing portfolio at levels that allow the facilities and infrastructure to provide the desired level of service and performance to each research program.
- Portfolio Renewal: Restore and modernize the existing facilities and infrastructure so that they meet the needs identified for each research program.
- Ownership Strategy: Develop a comprehensive ownership strategy that compliments the proposed renewal and capital investment, focused on providing reliable and mission appropriate research facilities and supporting infrastructure for the 21st century and beyond.
Figure 6-1 represents the relationship between these key elements and how critical it is to understand and commit to the total cost of ownership if NIST is to meet its strategic objectives.
A 1990 National Research Council (NRC) report identified the importance of a holistic approach to funding federal facilities which are defined by 42 U.S.C. 8253 as “any building, installation, structure, or other property (including any applicable fixtures) owned or operated by, or constructed or manufactured and leased to, the Federal Government.” The term “facility” includes “a group of facilities at a single location or multiple locations managed as an integrated operation, and contractor operated facilities owned by the Federal Government. The term ‘facility’ does not include any land or site for which the cost of utilities is not paid by the Federal Government” (42 U.S.C. 8253). Similarly, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and International Facilities Management Association (IFMA) use a similar definition that facilities are a collection of assets which are
built, installed, or established to serve an entity’s needs; the buildings we live and work in and their surrounding infrastructure (ISO 2017).
The report recommended an annualized investment of 2 to 4 percent of Current Replacement Value (CRV) for routine maintenance and repair (M&R) (above and beyond funding required to reduce the M&R backlog and operation costs such as utilities, custodial, IT, or security) (NRC 1998, 2004). In summarizing the committee’s findings, they noted:
While adequate M&R funding based on recognition of the full costs of ownership is a prerequisite for protection of the public’s assets, effective maintenance management is also required to realize the full benefit of the funds made available. Agencies should make specific assignments of responsibility for M&R to qualified and trained staff and managers. Activities such as minor alterations and improvements that may be disguised as M&R should be clearly identified and not permitted to divert resources from legitimate M&R functions. Education, training, and recognition of staff members responsible for M&R are needed, along with firm commitment to effective management of our built assets. (NRC 1990, p. xii)
In 1998, an NRC report addressed the issue with greater detail. The report emphasized the importance of understanding an agency’s public sector ownership responsibility, including (1) an accurate inventory of the real property for which the organization is responsible; (2) the real property’s annual funding needs for operation, maintenance, and minor repair; (3) the condition of the facilities and the impact that condition has on mission performance; and (4) a structured ownership strategy that tracks program requirements, links them to federal facility needs, and verifies that those needs are in fact being met by the agencies ownership strategy (NRC 1998). Executive Order 13327—Federal Real Property Asset Management, formalized these requirements in 2004. It directed federal agencies to develop an asset management plan addressing seven items (see Box 6-1).
In 2016 the Federal Property Management Reform Act formalized the Federal Real Property Council with three primary requirements:
- Develop guidance and ensure implementation of an efficient and effective real property management strategy.
- Identify opportunities for the federal government to better manage property and assets of the federal government.
- Reduce the costs of managing property of the federal government, including operations, maintenance, and security associated with federal property (P.L. 114-3180).
OMB followed by formalizing the designation and responsibilities of the senior real property officer1 and modifying the Capital Programming Guide to incorporate a life-cycle approach.2 In doing so, the federal government summarized the requirements of federal agencies to understand and maintain an inventory of what they own (real property), the life-cycle needs of the inventory across all funding requirements, and an asset management plan with identified legislative priorities and identified operations, maintenance, and investment requirements to meet agency objectives. These requirements establish an expectation of an integrated stewardship strategy linking agency priorities and objectives to financial investments in real property. Finally, the 2004 and 2014 National Academies reports provided additional insight on investment strategies, alternative delivery methods, prioritization strategies, and guidance on comprehensive ownership programs (NASEM 2014; NRC 2004).
The senior real property officer is at DOC and directs DOC operating units (OUs) through the DOC Real Property Manual. The manual appears to focus primarily on facility planning and recapitalization with only a limited discussion of the total cost of ownership, providing the OUs with only limited guidance on best practices in facility asset management. However, section 3.5.1 does recommend a life-cycle, present-value cost analysis, defined as “disciplined examination of alternatives not just involving first costs, but also predictable recurrent and periodic costs, and terminal (residual) values, all cast in present day worth by discounting future expenditures or income in accordance with present value theory” (DOC 2017, p. 35). Similarly, section 3.7 directs OUs to reduce operating expenses and improve the sustainability of the facilities.
Overall, there appears to be very limited guidance from the DOC with respect to identifying and effectively managing and funding the total cost of ownership requirements associated with real property within the department. The lack of guidance provides NIST with very limited direction as they work to build their ownership strategy. The guidance on 10-year planning identifies “rent” as a major component but fails to address operations and maintenance which collectively would represent more than one-third of the total funding forecast (DOC 2017). Most of the findings and recommendations within the committee’s report would be well suited to incorporation into the broader DOC Real Property Manual.
Capital investment to address NIST’s existing deferred maintenance needs and improve the functional capabilities of their research campuses is sorely needed. But absent an ownership strategy that addresses the total cost of ownership for existing and new real property, it will only serve as a temporary improvement and will be unlikely to yield a sustainable 21st century research institution with facilities and infrastructure that meet program needs.
___________________
1 OMB M-18-21 – Designation and Responsibilities of Agency Senior Real Property Officers.
2 OMB Circular A-11, A-12, and Supplement Capital Programming Guide.
A sustainable facility asset management program requires a clear understanding and organizational commitment to all the cost elements. For NIST to succeed in providing world-class3 research campuses that meet program requirements, the program requirements must first be identified and associated with a total cost of ownership. These requirements allow NIST to understand and commit to the funding requirements necessary to create world-class facilities and operate and maintain those facilities to meet program needs. If both are not addressed as part of the ownership strategy, it is unlikely the facilities and infrastructure will be able to meet current or future program needs.
Program Requirements
Program requirements represent a foundational element to developing and maintaining a 21st century research environment. Existing and new research programs on NIST campuses appear to have a somewhat ad hoc approach to real property requirements associated with research funding. The lack of consistent requirements creates a limitation on NIST’s ability to fully fund the total cost of ownership for existing and new facilities.
Development guidelines provided to the committee appear limited to campus strategic planning and prioritization of investment requirements. Those same documents do not appear to provide any insight on how proposed capital investments will increase or decrease total cost of ownership for the agency and leave the investment strategy with limited insight into the potential impacts to non-capital budget needs.
Finding 6-1: NIST does not appear to maintain a policy or standards document that forecasts portfolio ownership requirements by real property category.
Federal research institutions, such as the Department of Energy (DOE) and its Whole Building Design Guide, as well as professional industry associations, including the IFMA, the Leadership in Educational Facilities (APPA), the American Society of Healthcare Engineers, the Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA), and the Data Center Coalition, all provide similar guides to determining the total cost of ownership (TCO) that indicate over 75 percent of the TCO occurs after construction, with that number rising for laboratory space to 78 percent. Similarly, Stanford University’s life-cycle cost analysis standards use the Gates Computer Science Building as a case study, modeling a research facility with 42 percent of the cost of ownership in operations and maintenance and over 80 percent of the total cost of ownership occurring after beneficial occupancy (Stanford 2005).
Recommendation 6-1: NIST should develop and maintain facility and infrastructure total cost of ownership standards for each unique facility and infrastructure type that identifies (a) first cost, (b) annual operations costs (utility, security, custodial and janitorial), (c) sustainment costs, and (d) renewal (restoration and modernization) costs on a per unit basis as a baseline for identifying and forecasting the total cost of ownership for each new and existing facility, and supporting infrastructure with the resulting funding requirement identified as part of the overall research program needs.
Figure 6-2 provides a visual representation of the relationship between a research program facility and the development of a TCO forecast; a similar relationship generally exists for site infrastructure and associated TCO needs. The Department of Defense Unified Facility Criteria and associated Facilities Pricing Guide4 provides a representative source for federal real property construction, operations and maintenance, and sustainment, restoration, and modernization. Several industry references—such as the Whitestone Facility Operations Cost Reference, the IFMA Benchmarking Reports, the BOMA EER Reports, and RS Means Maintenance and Repair Cost References—also address TCO forecasting, although their terms differ somewhat from those utilized by NIST.
___________________
3 This report uses “world-class” in the sense of being among the best in the world.
4 For more information, see UFC 3-701-01 DoD Facilities Pricing Guide, with Change 1 2022, https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/UFC/ufc_3_701_01_2022_c1.pdf.
Resources such as these can readily allow NIST to develop TCO forecasts and then identify sources of funding to meet the facilities and infrastructure funding needs for each program and deliver a 21st century research campus.
Terminology for Figure 6-2 was selected to allow NIST to leverage existing industry benchmarking and reference products, which generally characterize real property expenditures as either capital expenditures or operational expenditures, with capital expenditures adding additional value, life, or functionality and operational expenditures delivering the intended value, life, or functionality. New construction and renewal are generally equivalent to capital expenditures, and operations, maintenance, and repair to operational expenditures. A TCO for an entire real property asset, as defined by American National Standards Institute standards, represents the sum of all resource requirements over the life of the real property asset.
Total cost of ownership by facility type also allows NIST to understand which facilities generally fall well beyond the 2 to 4 percent of CRV referenced in previous NRC publications (NRC 1990, 1998, 2004). As identified in the previous publications, the 2 to 4 percent represents a minimum and equally important, is based on a large population of real property with varying degrees of complexity and need. Agencies with mission specific or unique facilities have generally found that more complex facilities fall in the range of 6 to 8 percent of CRV on an annualized basis, and these numbers are independently supported by Whitestone reference products, RS Means, and similar industry benchmarks (Romani et al. 2010).
Establishing the costs for each type of real property existing or contemplated on NIST campuses would allow the organization to align ongoing funding obligations with appropriate facility performance requirements. As new programs are identified and approved, their associated real property needs (direct space and infrastructure support) would need to be identified along with a source of funding for all the TCO elements. In an interview with personnel at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (USACE’s) Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC)
in Vicksburg, Mississippi, ERDC indicated that they use a similar methodology with research programs incorporating the appropriate facility investments, while campus funding is supported on a pro rata use basis. In that scenario, it is incumbent upon each research program to adequately fund the facilities they occupy, and the campus maintains responsibility for centralized services and associated infrastructure.5 In an interview with the committee, the National Institutes of Health mentioned the problem of researchers bringing in new work that would require significant new facilities, but this had not been coordinated with the facilities staff, imposing possibly multi-year delays while awaiting the funding to build new laboratories.6
Total Cost of Ownership
APPA has published the first American National Standard (ANS) for Total Cost of Ownership (TCO): APPA 1000-1—Total Cost of Ownership for Facilities Asset Management (TCO)—Part 1: Key Principles. APPA is an association with 14,000 members comprised of educational facilities professionals from 1,300 educational institutions in North America and includes a significant portfolio of world class research facilities that constitute a good “peer group” for NIST. APPA defines TCO as “a strategic asset management practice that considers all costs of operations and maintenance in addition to the acquisition or first costs of design and construction” (Douglas 2016, 2021). “One of the key drivers for the creation of APPA 1000-1 is the recognized need to ensure that the entire cost of purchasing and owning a building through its lifetime is transparent and clearly understood by all stakeholders, and more importantly, prior to finalizing building and design plans on new construction. All too often the predictive cost analysis for a new building stops at “first cost” (planning, construction, and commissioning), when in fact the life of a building asset requires replacement of energy, utility, and safety systems; continual maintenance of the building exterior and interior and replacement of materials; updates to design and functionality; and other numerous and critical requirements” (Facility Executive 2021).
The fiscal year (FY) 2021 total CRV across the NIST campuses is in excess of $2.8 billion for a portfolio of 4.6 million gross square feet (GSF) with an average CRV of $621 per GSF, which is consistent with industry references (NIST 2021). Various industry reference guidelines suggest that operations, maintenance, and minor repair (annual funding) will be in excess of 6 percent annually as a percentage of CRV.7 For NIST’s existing real property portfolio, this comes to approximately $172 million/year prior to any renewal, modernization, or new construction. The addition of 1.5 million GSF identified as part of the NIST capital plan would add an additional $35 million/year in annual funding need for a total annual funding need in excess of $207 million/year to effectively operate and maintain the NIST portfolio as world class research campuses once the $300-$400 million capital program is completed. Information provided for the two campuses suggested annual funding lags typical industry recommendations for similar facilities by over 50 percent. Absent substantial changes to existing funding priorities, it is unlikely that new facilities envisioned in the capital investment strategy will be able to maintain or sustain the desired level of performance as they enter operation if their annual funding continues at 50 percent below recommended levels. Moreover, underfunding annual maintenance needs typically has the greatest impact on longer-term maintenance activities given an organization’s requirement to fund utilities and operating costs at the expense of planned maintenance activities that would enhance reliability and deliver on the intended service life of real property assets.
NIST’s Office of Facilities and Property Management (OFPM) Recovery Plan (discussed in Chapter 4) is warranted, and a reduction of deferred maintenance is critical for the agency, but absent appropriate changes to annual funding, it is unlikely that new capital will yield a sustainable ownership strategy. Additionally, the new capital investments are anticipated to increase utility demands and the complexity of facilities, and this may increase annual funding needs over those currently experienced in dated research facilities. Ideally, operations
___________________
5 Interview with staff from the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, May 24, 2022.
6 Interview with Dan Wheeland, director, Office of Research Facilities, National Institutes of Health, February 14, 2022.
7 For instance, the Whitestone Facility Operations Cost Reference, 2009-2010; the 2020 Building Owners and Managers Association International Experience Exchange Report; and the 2019 International Facility Management Association Facility Management Benchmarking report.
and maintenance funding would be increased to maintain an alignment between the real property portfolio growth and annual funding requirements.
Conclusion 6-1: NIST’s annual maintenance funding levels and existing priorities make it unlikely that the new research facilities and associated infrastructure will be capable of maintaining desired performance levels with respect to reliability and availability.
NIST’s current funding strategy appears to prioritize new capital investments over the development of a sustainable fiscal model capable of delivering 21st century research campuses within available funding levels. Unless existing annual funding is reprioritized to meet the full funding needs of new and existing facilities, reductions in deferred maintenance and facility performance are likely to be short-lived gains for the first 5 to 8 years of facility life, followed by increased risk to the portfolio as warranties and similar new construction benefits run their course.
NRC 1990 notes the following as one of its primary findings:
Underfunding is a widespread and persistent problem that undermines maintenance and repair (M&R) of public buildings. To overcome this problem, M&R budgets should be structured to identify explicitly the expenditures associated with routine M&R requirements and activities to reduce the backlog of deferred deficiencies. An appropriate budget allocation for routine M&R for a substantial inventory of facilities will typically be in the range of 2 to 4 percent of the aggregate current replacement value of those facilities (excluding land and major associated infrastructure). In the absence of specific information upon which to base the M&R budget, this funding level should be used as an absolute minimum value. Where neglect of maintenance has caused a backlog of needed repairs to accumulate, spending must exceed this minimum level until the backlog has been eliminated. (NRC 1990, pp. xi-xii)
While the research suggested a range of 2 to 4 percent for maintenance and minor repair, when operations costs are incorporated, the total annual funding needs typically move toward the range of 6 to 8 percent of aggregated CRV for annual funding and as high as 10 percent for complex research facilities (all real property ownership funding, excluding, renewal, renovation, or modernization). Industry references for research facility annual costs as well as direct experience from DOE Laboratories and higher education research facilities also note that the 2 to 4 percent represents typical facilities in large portfolios versus the complex research facilities that NIST operates.
NRC 1990 goes on to note that:
While adequate M&R funding based on recognition of the full costs of ownership is a prerequisite for protection of the public’s assets, effective maintenance management is also required to realize the full benefit of the funds made available. Agencies should make specific assignments of responsibility for M&R to qualified and trained staff and managers. Activities such as minor alterations and improvements that may be disguised as M&R should be clearly identified and not permitted to divert resources from legitimate M&R functions. Education, training, and recognition of staff members responsible for M&R are needed, along with firm commitment to effective management of our built assets. (NRC 1990, p. xii)
Federal real property agencies have consistently reported that they are underfunded in almost every professional review over the last two decades, yet the focus invariably shifts from improving the stewardship strategy of existing assets, to new construction and replacement of real property in deferred condition with new real property in good condition. However, a strategy to avoid repeating the same eventual outcome is rarely an element of the overarching ownership strategy. There are several key findings that are very relevant to NIST’s problem statement in NRC (1998):
The deteriorating condition of federal facilities is due, in part, to the federal government’s failure to recognize the total cost of facility ownership. Government budgeting practices are structured to focus on design and construction costs, which constitute only 5 to 10 percent of the total cost of ownership, rather than on the operations and maintenance of facilities, which account for 60 to 85 percent of total life-cycle costs. Thus, the emphasis has been on constructing and acquiring new buildings, rather than maintaining, reusing, or leasing existing buildings. (NRC 1998, p. 84)
The underfunding of facilities maintenance and repair programs is a persistent, long-standing problem. Federal operating and oversight agencies report that agencies have excess, aging facilities and insufficient funds to maintain, repair, or update them. Information provided to the committee indicated that agencies are receiving less than 2 percent of the aggregate current replacement value of their facilities inventories for maintenance and repair. Because of inadequate funding agencies routinely defer maintenance, which can result in an irreversible loss of service life, the loss of functionality, and higher costs over time. (NRC 1998, p. 85)
IFMA’s annual benchmarking report notes similar challenges for facility managers with utility and labor costs substantially impacting their annual operating budgets and potentially compromising regularly scheduled maintenance and deferring repairs resulting in increased deferred maintenance and greater risk to performance (IFMA 2020).
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the USACE Civil Works program (recognized in the most recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on asset management) represent two federal agencies that continue to enhance their understanding and focus on TCO management in lieu of deferred maintenance and new construction. NASA continues its effort to enhance real property performance and reliability while minimizing total cost of ownership through their Reliability-Centered Maintenance Program (RCM).
Since the NASA RCM Guide for Facilities and Collateral Equipment was implemented in 1996, the uses and capabilities of RCM principles and techniques have increased significantly. NASA applies the NASA-created Reliability-Centered Maintenance (RCM) Guide to successfully employ diverse asset maintenance strategies, varying from ‘run to failure’ to streamlined failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA), combined with Predictive Testing and Inspection (PT&I). (NASA 2008, p. 1-1)
NASA credits its focus on RCM practices with increasing the awareness of TCO needs while also improving the reliability and availability of their facilities, laboratories, and complex equipment. The USACE Civil Works Program has developed and implemented a methodology, titled O&M 20/20 (USACE 2020), supported by TCO by desired level of service as a means of consistently identifying, prioritizing, and funding annual maintenance needs to meet mission performance objectives. The process allows the Civil Works Program to identify required annual funding by levels of service and then adjusts actual implementation when annual funding requests differ from actual funding provided. Maintaining a clear understanding of what Civil Works needs to operate and maintain their $274 billion portfolio and then tracking actual funding against that need gives them an integrated ownership strategy and the ability to prioritize less than full funding to those real property assets with the greatest need. Figures 6-3 and 6-4 provide a representative view of the USACE Civil Works TCO funding approach as described in their 2012 Strategic Maintenance Management program (USACE 2012).
The annual funding needs for each level of service or level of performance in Figure 6-3 are developed based on annual maintenance standards and planning worksheets for each real property asset providing the USACE Civil Works program with clearly defined funding requirements and a line-of-site between annual funding, real property asset performance and mission objectives.
Over 10 years ago, APPA introduced the concepts of TCO to the educational facilities community and described the basic requirements of a TCO funding strategy. APPA defines TCO as a strategic asset management practice that considers all costs of operations and maintenance in addition to the acquisition or first costs of design and construction.
Total cost of ownership provides an alternative perspective and, in balance with the others, will help decision makers develop a sustainable, mission-based, and affordable asset investment strategy. The economic perspective evaluates the whole investment horizon as opposed to the financial perspective alone, which is often narrowed to a short-term perspective and typically focuses on one funding stream at a time for a single year or perhaps over a period of two to 5 years for capital projects. Total cost of ownership takes the intrinsic time-value of facilities into account and, as part of an asset investment strategy, holistically evaluates all forms of facility investments interrelation to the organization’s mission and objectives (Rose et al. 2007, p. 40).
NOTE: The left side of the figure represents the correlation between funding and performance; the right side is the process of asking and meeting program needs.
SOURCE: Leitch and Dillinger, 2012, USACE Strategic Maintenance Management.
SOURCE: U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 2012, Strategic Maintenance Management.
A funding methodology that reasonably forecasts the total cost of ownership for all NIST’s facilities and infrastructure funding needs (identified in Figure 6-2) is critical to achieving and maintaining world-class research facilities to meet NIST research program objectives.
NRC (1998) reached a similar conclusion when it stated:
The federal government should plan strategically for the maintenance and repair of its facilities in order to optimize available resources, maintain the functionality and quality of federal facilities, and to protect the public’s investment. (NRC 1998, p. 91)
Since that time, the federal government has codified the requirement for a more holistic approach through the Federal Real Property Reform Act of 2016 and supporting OMB guidance (Circulars A-11 and A-123, and OMB M-20-03 and M-20-10) to form a clear expectation of federal agencies, their senior real property officers, and their real property facility asset management programs.
Identifying a source of funds for all required annual operation and maintenance needs or identifying the gap between annual funding requirements and actual funding levels, provides NIST with a critical capability as the steward of a $2.85 billion investment that is projected to increase substantially in value to $5.125 billion as part of the organization’s capital strategy. Stanford Healthcare used a similar methodology to identify total cost of ownership requirements by level of service for a new $1 billion capital investment in order to focus annual funding needs with organizational investment plans, resulting in a significant shift in organizational priorities.8
Portfolio Renewal
Functionally appropriate and maintainable facilities and infrastructure offer an opportunity to shift from a reactionary to a proactive approach to stewardship of NIST’s real property portfolio. As noted in Chapter 3, NIST’s mission is critically dependent on the quality of the research facilities that house its measurement science and technology development efforts. Scientists and engineers working to push beyond the limits of today’s advanced technology require laboratories and facilities that provide precise environmental controls, including temperature, humidity, vibration isolation, and power conditioning. Deferred maintenance coupled with a lack of appropriate research facilities that meet the needs of NIST’s programs has left the agency in a precarious position with significant losses in productivity, accelerated degradation of existing real property, and limitations on future research capabilities. Significant investments to transition the existing portfolio into a 21st century research environment are clearly warranted if the nation is to realize the vision and benefits inherent within NIST research programs.
Of equal importance to the construction of new facilities that meet research requirements is the continual renewal of existing facilities and development of new facilities that lower the TCO, for which NIST can commit to appropriately funding on an annual basis once new construction is complete. As the DOE noted in their 2016 State of General-Purpose Infrastructure report:
Within individual program offices, infrastructure planning is now included as an integral component of the annual planning and evaluation process. This has enhanced integration of infrastructure and mission planning and raised the visibility of infrastructure and its mission impact. (DOE 2016, p. 5)
In 2019, DOE updated its facilities and infrastructure policy guidance to include a requirement for forecasting and budgeting annual maintenance and supporting infrastructure, directing the entire organization to
Establish a cost-effective sustainment program to keep existing facilities in an acceptable condition, functional and sustainable in support of current missions. Sustainment programs must include: a systematic management process for planning and budgeting for known future cyclical maintenance, repair, and renovation requirements for major building components or infrastructure systems; and a mechanism to track direct and indirect funded expenditures for maintenance and repair and renovation at the asset level. (DOE 2019, p. 8)
___________________
8 Stanford Healthcare, Strategic Asset Investment Model 500P, June 2020, provided by Eric Dillinger, committee member, to Jim Myska, study director, by email on July 29, 2022.
The initial report and subsequent enhancement to DOE’s policy governing real property ownership represent their focus not only on renewing their aging portfolio, but an acknowledged requirement to adequately maintain and support the annual requirements associated with the entire portfolio. A failure to do so would put them in a position of increasing their real property portfolio without adequately funding the associated operations and maintenance costs of new or existing facilities. Additionally, they also developed a specific focus on the supporting infrastructure and a requirement that the fiscal planning process incorporate infrastructure requirements to avoid disconnecting the research mission from the supporting infrastructure.
Stanford takes a similar approach to the development of research facilities on campus, with an expectation that a life-cycle cost analysis will identify annual costs for each new facility while also providing the most cost-effective design that still meets program requirements (Stanford 2005). Doing so allows Stanford to provide world-class research facilities with a clear understanding of annual costs and TCO.
This type of TCO focus or agency commitment to the cost of ownership appears poorly articulated at best or entirely missing from NIST’s current planning efforts. NIST’s Draft Recovery Plan identifies a well thought out capital construction program to reduce the agency’s deferred maintenance across the two campuses and improve the functionality and research capabilities of the supporting infrastructure. However, it provides no meaningful strategy to close the gap between current annual funding and the required levels of annual funding to avoid the same organizational challenges in real property condition and performance identified in previous NRC reports (NRC 1990, 2004, 2016, 2022). As the real property portfolio ages and maintenance continues at levels well below industry recommendations, it is likely that the condition and performance of the facility portfolio will degrade to an undesirable level of performance.
Finding 6-2: NIST’s current real property planning process and associated master plans appear to address the need for renovation and new construction but do not display an ability to address shortfalls in annual funding need or a focus on reducing total cost of ownership.
The committee’s analysis of NIST’s current facility condition and significant deferred maintenance backlog, discussed in depth in Chapters 3 and 4, suggests that NIST’s facility problems stem from chronic critical underfunding the existing portfolio’s annual operations and maintenance needs and a poor alignment between research program needs and the facilities that are needed to support those programs, with the result that many existing facilities that no longer meet research requirements or have exceeded their useful life. While NIST’s master plans and associated capital improvement program offer near term fixes to the existing portfolio, they do not provide a comprehensive ownership strategy that will allow NIST to maintain its portfolio of facilities and support its infrastructure at a level that can continue to meet the goal of providing world-class research facilities.
As part of Recommendation 6-1, NIST should augment its current master plans and capital development program to provide a balanced approach between the development of innovative new facilities and investments in the entire portfolio that reduce the total cost of ownership. Energy efficiency efforts, new facilities with a lower total cost of ownership than their predecessors, and removal of unused real property all provide mechanisms that can reduce TCO so that NIST operates a research portfolio that is maintained at the same standard as the research that occurs within the facilities.
An important element is the need to address all annual funding needs. Institutional Support (IS) funding for utilities, IT funding, and SCMMR must all be appropriately aligned to the real property requirements in order to provide world class research facilities (see Figure 6-2). Experience at Stanford, DOE, and other research organizations demonstrates that the potential exists to develop exceptional and cost-effective research facilities. However, NIST’s current master plans do not present this as a primary objective, which creates a significant risk that new construction will increase the annual funding requirements and create a greater gap in funding need versus the funding that is currently available.
Absent an intentional strategy that includes increasing annual funding to align to desired performance levels, the current portfolio renewal efforts have a significant risk of increasing real property costs with no corresponding increase in annual funding, leading to an accelerated loss of the real property investment and significant impacts to NIST’s primary research priorities.
Ownership Strategy
If world-class research facilities are essential to NIST’s ability to deliver world-class research, then it follows that an integrated approach should provide a strategy for tailored continual renewal to provide a 21st century research environment as a foundational element within the organization’s strategic plan and carried out through NIST’s Real Property Capital Plan, in alignment with OMB M-20-03, serving as a critical element to every research program.
Stanford Healthcare describes their ownership strategy as a
Strategic plan and commitment to excellence by emphasizing a holistic, long-term performance view of the entire asset portfolio. The policy provides a strategic framework for informed decision-making that optimizes asset investments and delivers a safe, high performing environment to all our Stakeholders. (Stanford 2016, p. 1)
Within the federal government, GAO identified six primary characteristics required to achieve effective facility asset management and a corresponding ownership strategy capable of delivering life-cycle value from real property investments. Figure 6-5 summarizes those expectations.
The asset management framework draws from previous National Academies efforts as well as international standards bodies in asset and facility management. Over 10 publications from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, dating back to 1990 and culminating in the 2023 report Strategies to Renew Federal Facilities, consistently detail the importance of a comprehensive ownership strategy for federal government real property. Executive Order 13327 solidified the requirement as an executive order and the Federal Real Property Reform Act of 2016 solidified the requirements into law in 2016. As recently as 2019, GAO reviewed federal agencies for their ability to deliver a comprehensive ownership strategy with the conclusion that most federal agencies still have significant opportunities to improve their approach to effective stewardship of real property assets.
Within the federal government, guidance for the ownership of real property rests with the federal government’s executive branch. OMB develops policy and direction for how federal agencies devise, implement, manage, and evaluate programs and policies ranging from The Federal Real Property Reform Act of 2016 to OMB’s 2017 Capital Programming Guide, OMB’s Circular A-11 and A-123, and OMB’s M-16-17, M-18-21, M-20-03, and M-20-10 that expand the responsibilities of federal agencies’ senior real property officers. The 2019 GAO Report addresses these requirements and OMB’s policy response in OMB M-20-03. Specifically, the guidance stated that each real property asset’s management plan should link the asset management framework to the agency’s strategic goals and objectives, describe a process for periodically evaluating assets, and describe a process for continuously monitoring the agency’s framework (GAO 2018).
NIST’s current ownership strategy has experienced many of the same challenges documented by other federal research organizations and, more broadly, by most federal agencies with real property holdings. Decades of prioritizing pure research over the operation and maintenance of world-class facilities has led to world-class research conducted in aged and antiquated facilities. NIST’s current ownership strategy has matured substantially in recent years but still lacks critical capabilities ranging from direct links between real property funding requirements and mission needs all the way through the identification of appropriate investment levels to avoid future deferred maintenance and associated program performance challenges.
Deferred maintenance and the substantial impacts to research, staff retention, and real property investments identified in Chapter 3 are clearly not the result of unforeseen natural disasters; poor design and construction; or a lack of statutory authorities to operate, maintain, and enhance the existing real property portfolio. Rather, they are the result of leadership choices to prioritize research investments and associated funding in lieu of investing in the facilities and infrastructure that underpin the research. Ample guidance from the executive order to OMB exists on the importance of operating and maintaining real property assets at the intended level of performance. However, it appears that NIST had limited visibility regarding the impacts the reduced investments in operations, maintenance, and revitalization on the $3.4 billion portfolio prior to the implementation of a more robust condition assessment program in recent years.
Chapter 3 identifies a substantial gap in annual funding that has led to significant deferred maintenance across both campuses suggesting that the value of the existing portfolio has eroded by over 28 percent. This is
SOURCE: Government Accountability Office, 2018, Federal Real Property Asset Management.
clearly represented in the independent Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology findings identified in previous chapters indicating a systemic funding deficit. Recent investment priorities appear to have been efficient in providing some near-term mitigation, and the current capital program offers a structured approach to addressing currently identified needs, but the combination addresses known challenges potentially leaving the agency with unmet functional requirements for future programs and a lack of annual funding to operate and maintain the desired real property portfolio.
OFPM has made substantial progress in recent years to improve the real property inventory and complete comprehensive condition assessments and is in the process of implementing a new computerized maintenance management system. Each of those efforts are important elements to developing an integrated ownership strategy, but when complete they will still leave a gap to meet the framework outlined by GAO and the referenced industry organizations in terms of providing a capital facility asset management system. OFPM appears substantially underfunded and as a result to lack the necessary resources to develop a comprehensive facility asset management program capable of identifying and forecasting all life-cycle costs for each real property asset, from commissioning, activation, and on-boarding after construction to annual operations and maintenance costs, through renewal and modernization as program requirements change. Current OFPM standards, practices, and supporting technology provides a primarily reactive approach to fiscally forecasting facility asset management needs. An essential element of the executive order and OMB guidance and one of the most important capabilities is adequately operating and maintaining the campuses at a level that meets research program requirements.
Finding 6-3: NIST’s current capital facility asset management system has evolved substantially in the last several years, but still lacks the capability to provide a proactive approach to real property management across the agency’s portfolio. Specifically, current programs do not adequately identify annual funding needs necessary to maintain the facilities at the level of performance required by research programs and they do not link the facilities effectively to individual research programs (missions).
NIST’s facility capital asset management practices do not adequately communicate the risks to all stakeholders caused by unfunded and underfunded requirements for annual funding, renewal, and modernization. For instance, the NIST facility Boulder and Gaithersburg Master Plans do not assess risks related to budget limitations and the management of funding sources. This is a chronic and universal problem recognized across the federal government as detailed in GAO’s High-Risk Series on Federal Real Property (GAO 2021) as well as previous National Academies publications discussed above. The result is that NIST’s real property investment decision-making is only loosely linked to NIST’s operational performance, driving a focus on the rapid expenditure of appropriated funds at the expense of critically evaluating the risks and consequences caused by underfunding ongoing real property needs.
The key differences between NIST’s current facility asset management activities and the framework recommended by GAO and summarized in Strategies to Renew Federal Facilities (NASEM 2023) lies in a decision-making framework that links real property investments for new construction, operations, maintenance, and minor repair to research and mission objectives within the agency. These include a comprehensive inventory of real property, a forecast of all costs (first and ongoing) for the real property, physical condition and functionality assessment, and a forecast of deferred maintenance and recapitalization requirements addressing the entire life cycle of real property ownership, from planning through disposal, or renewal or modernization, or both.
Recommendation 6-2: NIST should expand its current real property asset management system and strategy beyond condition assessment and deferred maintenance reporting and provide a proactive, life-cycle approach to real property ownership for the NIST real property portfolio that aligns with the Federal Real Property Reform Act of 2016 and the associated framework by GAO and the 2023 National Academies’ report Strategies to Renew Federal Facilities.
GAO’s report on federal real property facilities, as well as publications from the National Academies and international standards bodies, offer robust frameworks for the implementation of a proactive real property asset
management program. The USACE Civil Works program is a case study cited by GAO that has developed a strategic investment framework that links program objectives to real property performance and investment, allowing their decision-making process for annual funding, deferred maintenance reduction, and new construction to be prioritized in the context of enhancements to their value to the nation (USACE 2011). Similarly, the international standard for asset management, ISO 55000 points out: “Asset management does not focus on the asset itself, but on the value that the asset can provide to the organization. The value (which can be tangible or intangible, financial or non-financial) will be determined by the organization and its stakeholders, in accordance with the organizational objectives” (ISO 2014, p. 3). Figure 6-6 graphically depicts the civil works investment framework.
A similar real property asset management program would allow NIST to meet the framework requirements identified by GAO and the National Academies (NASEM 2023) and enhance the life-cycle management of existing and new real property. Summarizing the guidance from the public law, OMB, and other industry standards, a proactive real property asset management strategy would:
- Accurately represent the entire real property portfolio (facilities, infrastructure, and information technology [if not removed from OFPM’s responsibility])
- Link each real property asset to the appropriate research program or mission
- Clearly represent the performance (functional capabilities and physical condition)
- Document the total anticipated cost of ownership identified in Figure 6-2
- Then proactively manage and report to NIST on the relationship between the real property portfolio performance, associated risks, physical condition and functionality, and anticipated funding needs
Figure 6-7 is a visual depiction of this sequence.
SOURCE: Institute for Water Resources, USACE, Asset Management Strategic Investment Framework, 2011. Use of this reference, process, and mention of Institute for Water Resources name in this report does not constitute endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the Institute for Water Resources or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Functional requirements to NIST and the DOC provide a clear requirement for a comprehensive approach to facility asset management. DOC guidance to its OUs is limited in this respect, but the CFO (Chief Financial Officers) Act and OMB directives all identify a requirement for agencies to “consistently implement sound capital planning practices to optimize their portfolio in order to cost efficiently achieve the agency’s mission” (OMB 2019, p. 1).
Similarly, NIST has an opportunity to enhance their current condition assessment, deferred maintenance, and capital needs forecasting program. NIST currently utilizes the BUILDER Sustainment Management System (SMS) condition assessment protocol to determine the condition of its facilities and forecast deferred maintenance. It does not currently utilize a standardized methodology to perform functional assessments but indicates future efforts will incorporate that capability. NIST also reports that their current deferred maintenance funding forecasts appear to understate the actual needs for their facilities and is in the process of modifying baseline cost information to provide appropriate levels of detail and representative cost information. The current implementation does not appear to create a comprehensive understanding of real property requirements or align those requirements to associated research programs.
The DOE laboratories identified opportunities in their 2018 Annual Infrastructure Executive Committee Report to the Laboratory Operations Board where they noted:
In 2014, the Department developed a new data element for the Facility Information Management System FIMS). This data element, called ‘Overall Asset Condition’, combined traditional physical condition assessment results with functional assessments to identify assets’ overall ability to support the mission. Clear and consistent guidance for conducting overall condition assessments was developed through the LOB infrastructure process and issued across the Department; approximately 99 percent of DOE’s infrastructure assets have now been evaluated using this methodology. (IEC 2018, p. 4)
Their subsequent analysis confirms that research facilities benefit from a methodology that is inclusive of physical condition and functional adequacy and which clearly incorporates the underlying infrastructure requirements necessary to support the mission of each research effort. These findings are supported by research and benchmarking results from higher education (where integration of physical condition and functional adequacy is common) and the IFMA.
Future efforts to develop funding projections for existing and future facilities would be well served to consider a comprehensive physical condition and functionality assessment methodology that meets the mission requirements and business objectives for NIST with demonstrated capability in accurately projecting complex research facility needs. Specifically, a holistic physical condition and functionality assessment methodology would address the deficiencies noted by both DOE and NIST with an assessment methodology that identifies requirements driven by research based functional requirements, condition based physical needs, and incorporates the associated infrastructure, utility services, and related real property that collectively allow the research requirements to be met.
Working capital funds and similar approaches incorporate real property funding directly into research funding, thereby allowing the research program to prioritize the importance of the facilities with respect to the research requirements. Strategies to Renew Federal Facilities (NASEM 2023) provides a similar recommendation, identifying it as an effective strategy to ensure optimal use of federal facilities by having federal agencies guide budget development of federal facility renewal strategies through working capital funds or revolving funds to aggregate funding for capital investment into consolidated, agency-wide budget accounts, which could help smooth multiyear, life-cycle spending and avoid large, disruptive, year-to-year funding spikes.
Real property facility management models described in Chapter 5 are a common ownership strategy within the federal government, from the government owned, contract operator models at NASA and DOE research facilities, to the General Services Administration role as facility provider to federal agencies. Similarly, energy service company contracts offer long-term mechanisms that establish greater discipline and improved utility performance. Public–private partnerships also offer a model that can be utilized to substantially reinvest in campus real estate with limited up-front capital investment and transition the operations, maintenance, and renewal into a user pay model.
A research-funded model, as described by USACE ERDC, would require that individual NIST laboratories pay for the portion of facilities they consume directly out of the budgets they receive and maintain an alignment between research program objectives and facilities and infrastructure investments and is a relatively common funding approach for many federal agencies.
Once NIST has renewed the existing campuses and developed a comprehensive approach to TCO, establishing a holistic funding approach for all real property (facility and infrastructure requirements) that allows research programs to be supported by consistent annual investments that provide for total cost of ownership funding as required to support research program needs would be instrumental.
A NIST REAL PROPERTY CAPITAL PLAN
To complete this report’s discussion, the following draws from the National Academies’ 2023 report Strategies to Renew Federal Facilities. It outlines how a facility asset management system is used to fulfill Recommendation 6-2, in summary, that NIST should expand its current real property asset management system and strategy beyond condition assessment and deferred maintenance reporting and provide a proactive, life-cycle approach to real property ownership for the NIST real property portfolio. Specifically, NIST needs to evolve its facility asset management system to not only focus on expert management of limited funding to respond to facility asset lifecycle requirements, but to evolve its facility asset management capabilities to be more attentive to how these assets support today’s and tomorrow’s mission in consideration of the total cost of ownership to do so (NASEM 2023).
In practical terms, this involves putting into place a facility asset management system that conforms to ISO 55000 principles9 and ISO 55001 asset management system requirements.10 As with Strategies to Renew Federal Facilities, this committee does not suggest that NIST seek ISO 55001 certification. It only identified these sources as a rubric NIST can use to support continual improvement of OFPM asset management capabilities. Following this path leads to development of a NIST Real Property Capital Plan that would:
___________________
9 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2014. ISO 55000 Asset management – Overview, Principles and Terminology. First edition January 2014. Corrected version March 2014.
10 International Organization for Standardization (ISO). 2014. ISO 5500 Asset management – Management Systems – Requirements. First edition January 2014.
- Document and relate NIST’s organizational and asset management objectives
- Use this analysis to define supporting leading performance metrics
- Report progress in achieving past performance using these metrics
- Use this analysis to forecast future performance
- Reconcile the performance forecasts with budget forecasts and resource capabilities
In this way, and in accordance with OMB M-20-03: Implementation of Real Property Capital Planning, NIST’s Real Property Capital Plan would be the single statement of commitment to achieve NIST’s performance objectives, considering any risks to the fulfillment of NIST’s mission caused by budget limitations. Thus, the NIST Real Property Capital Plan and supporting documentation would also become the central source for a coordinated NIST capital facility budget (e.g., IS; Safety, Capacity, Maintenance, and Major Repairs [SCMMR]; and Construction and Major Renovations [CMR]) justification in compliance with OMB Circular A-11, Supplement Capital Programming Guide requirements of the Agency Capital Plan.
By extension, Figure 6-8 shows the anatomy of a facility asset management system, described in Strategies to Renew Federal Facilities (NASEM 2023), tailored to NIST’s needs. This anatomy details specific logic that aligns with OMB Circulars A-11 and A-123 to achieve executive, DOC, and NIST policies governing real property asset management.
SOURCE: Courtesy of J. Dempsey, founder, Asset Management Partnership, LLC.
0. Mission Execution covers NIST’s statuary responsibilities carried out through NIST’s programs, as discussed in Chapter 2. Mission execution requirements and objectives are communicated through congressional authorizations and appropriations, as well as DOC, and NIST real property guidance.
1. Organizational Objectives are conferred through NIST’s strategic plans and supporting guidance. Organizational objectives need to be clearly stated and, when possible, traceable to supporting capital facility requirements. Organizational objectives form the basis for NIST’s mission outcome performance measurement along and related to its different missions and research objectives.
2. Facility Asset Management Objectives are developed to ensure the achievement of organizational objectives. Facility asset management objectives translate aspirational and mission-oriented objectives into concrete facility asset and facility management performance objectives that are supported through IS, SCMMR, and CMR program execution. The purpose is to use facility asset management objectives to frame levels of service and performance metrics for the facilities needed to support NIST mission achievement, such as is shown in Figure 6-3 Project Maintenance Management Funding discussed earlier. This concept of operation can be applied through planning criteria, facility condition targets, facility functionality requirements (which, beyond condition, goes to whether a facility can support its mission), and facility utilization standards. To work, facility asset management objectives need to be established using specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound (SMART) criteria and thresholds that double as performance baselines and reporting requirements for planning, resource management, and investment decision-making.
3. Assessment of Asset Capabilities include the assessment and measurement of NIST’s real property portfolio to the functional requirements needed by the research activities. Information supporting this is typically obtained through facility assessments, inspections, and studies of current real property capabilities and new research requirements. Activities doing this include master planning, physical condition and functionality assessments, and space studies. A gap found between a facility asset management objective and a facility’s current capability is a requirement that necessitates an IS, SCMMR, or CMR work remedy. Requirements can range from performing a maintenance work order, executing a repair project, renovating an existing asset, or building or acquiring a new asset.
4. Risk Management and Resource Planning is a gap analysis and planning activity. It includes the comparison between facility asset management objectives and assessed facility asset capabilities. A subsequent analysis of identified gaps is used to develop action plans to address resulting requirements. This planning sets the context for the facility asset management plans (referred to as AMPs in ISO 55000 standards) that would involve the coordination of IS, SCMMR, and CMR funding sources and determining how to manage risk related to unfunded requirements.
5. Real Property Capital Plan would be developed to conform with OMB M-20-03 guidance. This emphasizes compliance with guidance and requirements contained in OMB Circulars A-11 and A-123. The Real Property Capital Plan would integrate NIST budget and strategy across IS, SCMMR, and CMR fundings streams to coordinate execution of a discrete set of facility projects, levels of services, and maintenance strategies.
6. Execution of Facility Programs would use the NIST Real Property Capital Plan and subordinate plans and governance to direct and coordinate supporting planning for IS, SCMMR, and CMR program execution. The performance evaluation of program execution is then measured in terms of this work’s contribution to achievement of organizational objectives and asset management objectives conferred through the Real Property Capital Plan in direct alignment with NIST strategic and resource goals and objectives.
7. Performance Evaluation and Reporting is the last part of this facility asset management system anatomy and supports adaptive, resilient decision-making. This includes critical performance analysis retracing and affirming linkages between NIST’s mission, strategy, budget, organizational objectives, asset management objectives, and facility performance. This process supports continual improvement, risk management, and assures stakeholders throughout are aware of, understand, and have confidence in the decision-making process used.
Collectively, the discussion and recommendations above reflect industry best practices, international standards organizations, and the direction embodied in current OMB guidance. Furthermore, they offer NIST a strategic approach to improve its facility asset management system and capability to meet program research requirements with a sustainable 21st century portfolio of research facilities and supporting infrastructure.
REFERENCES
DOC (Department of Commerce). 2017. “Real Property Management Manual: Second Edition.” Washington, DC: Department of Commerce Office of Facilities and Environmental Quality Real Property Programs.
DOE (Department of Energy). 2016. “The State of General Purpose Infrastructure at the Department of Energy.” https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/11/f34/Report_State_GeneralPurposeInfrastructure-DOE_Nov2016.pdf.
DOE. 2019. “Real Property Asset Management.” Order DOE O 430.1C. Updated October 4. https://www.directives.doe.gov/directives-documents/400-series/0430.1-BOrder-c/@@images/file.
Douglas, C. 2016. “The Total Cost of Ownership.” Facilities Manager. https://www.appa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/TCOArticleJun-Jul2016.pdf.
Facility Executive. 2021. “First ANSI Standard for Total Cost of Ownership Released.” https://facilityexecutive.com/2018/01/first-ansi-standard-total-cost-of-ownership-released.
GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2003. “High Risk Series: Federal Real Property.” GAO-03-122. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-03-122.
GAO. 2018. “Federal Real Property Asset Management: Agencies Could Benefit from Additional Information on Leading Practices.” GAO 19-57. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-57.pdf.
IEC (Infrastructure Executive Committee). 2018. “Annual Infrastructure Executive Committee Report to the Laboratory Operations Board. Department of Energy.” https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2018/09/f56/MAAsset_MA50_IECReport_2018-03-27.pdf.
IFMA (International Facility Management Association). 2020. “Benchmarking Operating Costs Throughout Time: Operations and Maintenance Index 2020.” Houston, TX: IFMA.
ISO (International Organization for Standardization). 2014. “International Standard ISO 55000 Asset management—overview, principles, and terminology.” First Edition. Corrected version March 15, 2014.
ISO. 2017. “Facility Management Vocabulary.” ISO 41011:2017.
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2008. “RCM Guide: Reliability-Centered Maintenance Guide for Facilities and Collateral Equipment.” https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_rcmguide.pdf.
NASEM (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine). 2023. Strategies to Renew Federal Facilities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 2020. “Shaping the Future of NIST: NIST 2020-2025 Strategic Plan.” Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST. 2021. “Condition Assessment Report: 4th QTR.” Gaithersburg, MD.
NIST. 2022. “About NIST.” https://www.nist.gov/about-nist.
NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Committing to the Cost of Ownership: Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1998. Stewardship of Federal Facilities: A Proactive Strategy for Managing the Nation’s Public Assets. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
NRC. 2004. Investments in Federal Facilities: Asset Management Strategies for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
OMB (Office of Management and Budget). 2015. “National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property 2015-2020.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/National-Strategy-for-Real-Property.pdf.
OMB. 2016. “Management’s Responsibility for Enterprise Risk Management and Internal Control.” Circular A-123. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/legacy_drupal_files/omb/memoranda/2016/m-16-17.pdf.
OMB. 2018. “Appendix A to OMB Circular No. A-123, Management of Reporting and Data Integrity Risk.” OMB M-18-16. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/M-18-16.pdf.
OMB. 2019. “Implementation of Agency-wide Real Property Capital Planning.” M-20-03. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/M-20-03.pdf.
OMB. 2021a. “Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget.” Circular A-11. https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/a11.pdf.
OMB. 2021b. “Capital Programming Guide V 3.1: Supplement to Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11: Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets.” https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/capital_programming_guide.pdf.
Romani, L., M. Towers, D. Abate, and R. Dotz. 2010. “The Whitestone Facility Operations Cost Reference 2009-2010.” Third Edition. Whitestone Research.
Rose, R., D. Cain, J. Dempsey, R. Schneider. 2007. Buildings…. The Gifts That Keep on Taking: A Framework for Integrated Decision Making. Center for Facilities Research (CFaR).
Stanford (Stanford University). 2005. “Guidelines for Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Stanford University Lands and Buildings.” https://sustainable.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Guidelines_for_Life_Cycle_Cost_Analysis.pdf.
Stanford. 2016. “Stanford Health Care Asset Management Policy.” AMP-SHC.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2011. “Asset Management Strategic Investment Framework.” Washington, DC.
USACE. 2012. “USACE Strategic Maintenance Management.” Washington, DC.
USACE. 2020. “Civil Works Direct Program Development Policy Guidance.” Washington, DC. https://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Users/182/86/2486/EC_11-2-222.pdf?ver=2020-04-01-123227-627.
VCAT (Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology). 2002. “Annual Report.” https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2017/05/09/vcat2002.pdf.
VCAT. 2021. “Letter Report to Secretary Gina Raimondo, March 4.” https://www.nist.gov/system/files/documents/2021/03/29/FINAL_VCAT%20Letter%20Report.pdf.
This page intentionally left blank.
