large research facility budget over the next 2 decades. The roadmap is not a guarantee of funding but rather a plan for the development of NSF’s large research facility program.
2. The National Science Foundation, with the approval of the National Science Board, should base its annual MREFC budget submission to Congress on the roadmap. The annual budget submission should include the proposed yearly expenditures over the next 5 years for committed projects and for projects that will start in that period. It should supply a rank ordering of the proposed new starts and should include the rationale behind the proposed budget, the project ranking, and any differences between the budget submission and the roadmap.
The committee emphasizes that the final determination and approval of rankings across disciplines must be the responsibility of the NSF senior leadership subject to final approval by the NSB.
3. To ensure that a large research facility project selected for funding is executed properly, on schedule, and within its budget, the National Science Foundation should enhance project preapproval planning and budgeting to develop a clear understanding of the project’s “technical definition” (also called “scope of work”) and the “implementation plan” needed to carry out the work.
Once a project is funded, there should be provision for a disciplined periodic independent review of the project’s progress relative to the original plan by a committee that includes internal and external engineering and construction experts and scientific experts and that will monitor the project’s status and provide its evaluation to the NSB and NSF.
After the construction phase, a committee with a different external and internal membership that includes scientists and people with expertise in managing large facilities should monitor facility operations annually (or as needed).
Finally, NSF has created a new position—Deputy Director, Large Facility Projects in NSF’s Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management—to oversee the construction of these projects. Given the new nature and importance of this position, it should be reviewed by a committee of internal and external experts to evaluate its operation and effectiveness within a 2-year period. (See page 17 for a description of this position.)
4. To ensure that potential international and interagency collaborations and ideas are discussed at the earliest possible stages, the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President