Deferred Maintenance Reporting for Federal Facilities: Meeting the Requirements of Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Standard Number 6, as Amended (2001)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

DEFINITIONAL ISSUES AND POTENTIAL REVISIONS 23 3 Methodological Issues and Alternative Approaches for Calculating Deferred Maintenance for Facilities FASAB Standard Number 6, as amended, specifies two methods that can be used to calculate deferred maintenance for all classes of property, plant, and equipment: condition assessment surveys or a total life-cycle cost method. The standard states that “other methods” may be used but stipulates that the other methods must be identical or similar to the total life-cycle cost method or condition assessment surveys (FASAB, 1996). It is the federal agency management's discretion to determine which method to use. As noted in Chapter 2, developing definitions to apply to classes of assets with substantial variations in character, life cycle, complexity, and use can be problematic when applying them to a particular class of asset. Similarly, specifying methodologies for deferred maintenance reporting for different classes of assets can be problematic. An additional consideration is the level of resources required to implement these methodologies that will depend, in part, on the methodology itself and also on the availability of data. When data are available, the costs of implementation can be minimized. However, when the specified data are not available, the cost of gathering the data can be high, and this raises cost-benefit issues. Methodologies based on condition assessment surveys and total life-cycle cost are appropriate and valid for deferred maintenance reporting for facilities. However, several concerns were raised by the committee regarding specific aspects of FASAB Standard Number 6, as amended. One concern was that the standard implies or could be interpreted to imply that condition assessment survey data should be available for all facilities in an agency's inventory and that such data should be updated annually. In practice, the availability of condition assessment data varies from agency to agency. Data collection procedures also vary; typically, those agencies that have instituted comprehensive condition assessment survey programs reinspect facilities on a cycle of every 3 to 5 years or longer. A second concern was that the data elements required by the standard for the total life-cycle cost method are not reflective of facilities management practices and limit the use of this methodology for deferred maintenance reporting for facilities. This chapter focuses on issues related to methodologies for deferred maintenance reporting for facilities and describes additional approaches that are similar to condition