• Like
Stephen.rider
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Stephen.rider

  • 13,244 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
13,244
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Preparing for Facilities Readiness Stephen Rider, P.E. Facilities Program Engineer
  • 2. NASA Mission: To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research. NASA’s Strategic Goals1. Fly the Shuttle as safely as possible until its retirement, no later than 2010.2. Complete the International Space Station in a manner consistent with NASA’s International Partner commitments and the needs of human exploration.3. Develop a balanced overall program of science, exploration, and aeronautics consistent with the redirection of the human spaceflight program to focus on exploration.4. Bring a new Crew Exploration Vehicle into service as soon as possible after Shuttle retirement.5. Encourage the pursuit of appropriate partnerships with the emerging commercial space sector.6. Establish a lunar return program having the maximum possible utility for later missions to Mars and other destinations. 2
  • 3. Presentation Objectives• NASA Facilities Management – Organization – Goals – Purpose – Strategy – Best Practices• Rules and Requirements – NASA Space Act – Executive Orders – Agency Policies and Processes – Funds Management• Recommendations 3
  • 4. Organization Chart Office of theAdministrator Mission Support Office of Institutions and Management Office of Infrastructure and Administration Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division 4
  • 5. Facilities Engineering and 5/31//2007 Real Property Division Director James W. Wright Administrative Specialist Mary Stites Resources Team •CoF Funds Management •Budget FormulationPlanning & Real Facilities Engineering, Estate Branch Maintenance and Operations Branch • Master Planning • Real Property • Construction of Facilities Management program management 5
  • 6. Real Property Management Plan Goals1. Identify and address real property requirements as an integral part of Agency, Mission Directorate, program, and project planning.2. Construct and operate new real property to meet mission requirements only when existing capabilities cannot be effectively used or modified.3. Continually evaluate its real property assets to ensure alignment with the NASA Mission.4. Leverage its real property to its maximum potential.5. Sustain, revitalize, and modernize its real property required by the NASA Mission. 6
  • 7. Real Property• Definition: land, buildings, structures, utilities systems, and improvements and appurtenances thereto, permanently annexed to land – Includes collateral equipment • Building-type equipment, built-in equipment, and large, substantially affixed equipment normally acquired and installed as a part of a facility project 7
  • 8. CoF Program Purpose• Acquire, repair, modify, and/or construct real property to support and accomplish NASA’s missions• Comply with Public Laws – National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 – Appropriation Act – Authorization Act – Executive Orders 8
  • 9. Facilities Strategy• Facilities supporting the mission: – Invest in facility maintenance, repair, replacement – Invest in sustainable operations, design and construction techniques when economically justified• And the others: – Eliminate • Demolition Program • Other real property solutions (transfer, excess) 9
  • 10. Facility Life Cycle Facility Life-Cycle Performance Curve Recapitalization Investments: Addresses obsolescence, modernization, revitalization by replacement.New FacilityPerformance (or Condition) Average Performance Curve for an inventory with full sustainment Repair necessary to bring facility to an acceptable condition. Adequate Inadequate More rapid deterioration due to Replace facility. inadequate sustainment, and subsequent loss of service life. 67 Years: Target service life of a facility with full sustainment Time (or Service Life) 10
  • 11. Facilities Benchmarking• Construction Industry Institute – Over 100 Organizations • Industry • Government • Academia• Federal Facilities Council – 25 Federal Agencies • GSA • Department of State • Department of Defense (DoD) 11
  • 12. CoF Best Practices• Front End Planning• Partnering• Team Building• Constructability• Value Management• Sustainability – Sustainable Design – Design for Maintainability – Total Building Commissioning – Design for Safety and Security• Construction Safety – Making Zero Incidents a Reality
  • 13. National Aeronautics And Space Act• Authorization* – TITLE II, Section 203, (c), (3) • Authorizes construction, improvements, for laboratories, research & testing sites & facilities as deemed necessary• IMPACT: NASA can acquire, construct and repair real property without going through GSA (or any other Agency).* Authorization - is a legislative act authorizing money to be spent for government programs that specifies a maximum spending level without provision for actual funds. 13
  • 14. National Aeronautics And Space Act• Appropriations – Title III, Section 310, (a) • nothing in this Act shall authorize the appropriation of any amount for (1) the acquisition or condemnation of any real property, or (2) any other item of a capital nature (such as plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion) which exceeds $250,000. – Impact: All of our CoF appropriations come to us through public laws (i.e. President’s Budget and Congress) 14
  • 15. Additional Real Property Requirements• Executive Order 13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management – Real Property Asset Management Plan• Executive Order 13423, Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management – Sets new energy efficiency standards• Center Master Plans 15
  • 16. Policies & Procedures• NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 7330.1G Approval Authorities for Facility Projects• NPD 8820.2C, Design and Construction of Facilities• *NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8820.2F, Facility Project Requirements *Revision in process for approval and signature at the time of this slide presentation submittal. NPR 8820.2E may still be in effect. 16
  • 17. CoF and NPR 7120.5 Series• NPR 7120.X Series refers to NPR 8820.2 – For CoF processes and facility project requirements• NPR 8820.2 refers to NPR 7120.5D • When a facility project is also a project per NPR 7120.5D, both policies apply – No duplication of effort is required, but elements from both documents must be met 17
  • 18. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING NPR 7123.1• Application of this NPR to Construction of Facilities (CoF) – Scaled to level of systems engineering for function of structure – Documented in systems engineering management plan (SEMP) (as required) – Refers to NPR 8820.2 for CoF engineering requirements• NPR 8820.2 refers to NPR 7123.1 18
  • 19. CoF Project Types• Institutional (Prioritized Agencywide): – Common use facilities, such as primary utility distribution systems, general administrative buildings, roads, parking lots, and quality of life facilities• Program Direct (Prioritized within each Program): – Facilities required to satisfy Program specific requirements/capabilities (e.g. test facilities, labs, R&D) 19
  • 20. CoF Process IdentifyRequired Capability Functional These are Not Typically Requirements Statement CoF Funded Facility Concept Study Environmental Evaluation Perform Studies Requirements Document 20
  • 21. CoF Process Preliminary TypicallyEngineering Report CoF Funded Engineering Studies Design Construction Activation 21
  • 22. CoF Typical Timeline IdentifyRequired Capability Functional Six months to a year Requirements Statement Facility Concept Study Environmental Evaluation Perform Studies Requirements Document 22
  • 23. CoF Typical Timeline Preliminary Three to five yearsEngineering Report Engineering Studies Design Construction Activation 23
  • 24. CoF Funding Categories• Local Approval (Center budgeted) – Any project costing less than $500,000 – Not included within the Agency CoF Program• Minor Revitalization and Repair – $500,000 and less than $5,000,000• Discrete – $5,000,000 and up• Demolition – No funding limits – Not exclusively CoF Program funded• Facilities Planning and Design 24
  • 25. CoF Funding Rules Outside of the Normal Budget Process• Upward variations into the CoF Program (Institutional Investment) – Limited to 10% of the appropriated programs affected or $750,000 whichever is less• Operating Plan Changes – Any project change in excess of the upward variation rules 25
  • 26. Recommendations• New capabilities – *Notify Facilities Organization (Center or HQ) as early as possible to get your facility needs into the budget• Existing Capabilities – *Ensure the Center Facilities Organization is aware of your need for the facility• Fully define your facility requirements – Schedule, Cost, and Scope *Note: Even if you don’t know your complete facility requirements yet. 26
  • 27. Questions? 27
  • 28. BACKUP Slides
  • 29. NASA Real Property• Just the Facts: – Over 2500 Buildings – Over 2300 Other Structures – Over $23 Billion Current Replacement Value – Over40 Million Square Feet – Over 360,000 Acres – Aged, high technology facilities. 29
  • 30. Facility by Type (# of facilities) Roads, Bridges, All Other Office Airfield Pavements Railroads Harbors and Ports Recreational (other than buildings) Power Development and Distribution Laboratories Other Institutional UsesNav. & Traffic Aids, Flood Control Warehouses/ Stora Communications Systems Utility Systems Industrial R&D (not Labs) Space Exploration Service Structures 30
  • 31. Facilities by Type (replacement value) All Other Roads, Bridges, Office Railroads Airfield Pavements Harbors and Ports Power Development and Distribution Laboratories Storage Industrial Service Space Exploration Structures R&D (not Labs) CommunicationsFrom RPI Systems Utility SystemsFebruary 2006 31
  • 32. FY06 Facility Condition Index by Center (Active Facilities Only) Based on a parametric model, 5 point scale (1 – Poor, Unable to meet intended function; 5 – Very Good, fully functional with no significant repairs required). FCI is calculated annually, based on 100% inspection of all NASA facilities. 4.5 Total Agency FCI: 3.6: “Fair:” “Occasionally unable to function as intended.” 4 3.5FCI 3 2.5 2 JPL ARC DFRC GRC GSFC JSC KSC LaRC MSFC SSC 32
  • 33. Years G 0 10 20 30 40 50 R C 60 A RC M AF La RC M SF C W FF G SF C JP L JS W C ST F K Average Facility Age SC SS D C FR C33
  • 34. Total Current Replacement Value by Center 4.5 4 3.5 3 $ Billions 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 KSC GRC LaRC ARC SSC JSC MSFC JPL GSFC DFRC 34Note: Includes both Active & Inactive Facilities
  • 35. Acreage by Center NASA owns 125,276 acres Controls another 237,901 acres 140,000 Total 363,177 acres 8,000 120,000 Acres Total Acres Owned 7,000 Acres Total 100,000 6,000 Acres Owned 80,000 5,000A cres 60,000 4,000 3,000 40,000 2,000 20,000 1,000 0 KSC SSC WSTF 0 M AF W FF JP L G SFC JS C M SFC ARC DFRC GRC L aR C 35
  • 36. Facilities Life Lines• Construction of Facilities (CoF) • FERPD budgeted, managed and funded for Institutional projects – Discrete - $5 M and over (no year) – Minor Revitalization and Construction - $500K-$5M (3 year) – Demolition – $0 and up (no year) – Facility Planning and Design (FP&D) (3 year) • Studies, Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), Designs – Full Cost (2 year) • Full Time Equivalents (FTE), Travel, Contractor Support• Center Management and Operations (CM&O) • Facilities Projects (under $500K) – Facility Operations and Maintenance • FERPD provides advocacy and sets Agency policy 36
  • 37. Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division Facilities Maintenance Assessment Not corrected for inflation 600 Funded M&R* National Research Council (2% CRV) Requirement Reported by Centers** 500 Facilitiy Sustainment Model 400$M 300 200 100 0 FY96 FY97 FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 *M&R defined as the recurring day-to-day work required to preserve facilities (buildings, structures, grounds, utility systems, and collateral equipment) in such a condition that they may be used for their designated purpose over an intended service or design life. (non-CoF) 37 ** M&R Requirement = Center request for adequate maintenance and stable repair backlog.
  • 38. CoF Funding 2000-2013 (Procurement Only) 450 PROGRAM DIRECT FY06-08: MSFC Replacement Building; 400 JPL Flight Projects Center; GSFC Exploration Sciences Bldg; 350 300Dollars in Millions 250 200 150 100 50 0 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 Institutional Center G&A Corporate G&A Program Direct Hurricane supplemental funding shown for information only 38
  • 39. FY 07 PPBES CoF Prioritization• Uses a Risk Management Approach (5 by 5 Matrix) – Project must be mission related – Probability and Consequences Plotted – Discerning factors delineate between projects with same score• Final prioritization is done by a team made up of members from each Center, Mission Directorates, and Mission Support Offices• Establishes Agency CoF Priorities• CoF Prioritization Timeline – driven by HQ Office of the Chief Financial Officer 39
  • 40. CoF Prioritization Results (FY 09)• Over $174 M was Center Total initially scored as Very ARC 10,140 High Risk (Probability 5, DFRC 8,800 Consequence 5) GRC 10,200• After scrubbing the list, GSFC 10,200 we were able to add in JPL 10,100 some High risk (5,4 or JSC 19,950 4,5) KSC 23,600• Consensus process LaRC 10,200 (using color coded MSFC 14,800 cards) SSC 5,900• Open process with buy in from all Total 123,890 40
  • 41. CoF Demolition Program• Headquarters provides funding – $10M per year, FY04 through FY07; $15 M for FY08 and beyond – Saves costs and improves overall condition by removing unneeded facilities • From NASA’s FY05 Deferred Maintenance Report: “NASA’s aggressive demolition program (in FY04-05), 117 facilities, accounted for a DM reduction of $17 million…$64 million reduction in FY04…$98 M in FY05” – Removes safety and environmental hazards• Demolition also required as part of repair by replacement• Centers also fund demolition projects• Deconstruction techniques are used to offset costs (e.g. salvaging steel and copper) 41
  • 42. Institutional CoF Issues• Significantly under-funded – Recent data call identified $484 M in requirements for FY 2009 consideration through prioritization – $174 M was Very High risk to mission – $97 M was High risk to mission – $124 M available for FY 2009 prioritization• Impact: – Risk to infrastructure will increase (recent incidents of fires at JSC and GRC), increasing risk to mission – Reactive mode for natural/manmade disasters – System failures redirect scarce funds (GRC electrical fire) 42
  • 43. Coming CoF Tools• Building Information Modeling – Software used to model a facility• Facilities Project Management Database – GRC developed – Focus on project execution phases • Design, Construction – May soon be “required” method for receiving CoF funds 43
  • 44. Other Real Property Initiatives• Shared Capabilities Assets Program• Sustainable design and construction• Healthy Buildings (Indoor Air Quality – IAQ)• Construction Safety• Reliability Centered Maintenance• Full Cost Management and use of Working Capital Fund• Integrated Asset Management 44