|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 10
1
Introduction
Buildings and other constructed facilities are investments made by owners in
anticipation of the services they will provide and the activities they will support.
To serve specific functions and missions and generally conduct its business, the
federal government has built or acquired more than 500,000 buildings, facilities,
and their associated infrastructures worldwide (i.e., roads, utility plants, distribu-
tion systems, and the like). Government facilities are used to defend the national
interest; conduct foreign policy; house historic, cultural, and educational arti-
facts; pursue research; and provide services to the American public. Buildings of
fundamental architectural or historical significance, such as the White House, the
United States Capitol, and monuments to national heroes and events, symbolize
the American government and heritage. Military installations, which are often the
size of small cities, support the defense and protection of American interests at
home and abroad. Embassy compounds house and provide workplaces for gov-
ernment employees conducting foreign policy and serving American citizens
overseas. Archives, libraries, and museums are repositories for priceless and irre-
placeable documents, literature, art, and artifacts that embody human culture and
history. Research laboratories and space centers provide workplaces for scien-
tists, engineers, and medical experts developing technologies, techniques, and
medicines to improve the quality of life for current and future generations. Court-
houses, prisons, hospitals, and administrative offices support the provision of a
wide range of services to local communities. National park facilities provide rec-
reational opportunities for citizens and foreign visitors.
Federal facilities comprise a portfolio of significant, durable public assets
that reflect the investment of more than 300 billion tax dollars (Table 1-1~.
10
OCR for page 11
11
an
-
-
c)
cq
· - ~
so
,~o.
cq
an
.o
be
¢
so
an
an
- ~
an
'e
an
o
an
o
an
¢
Em
o coat ~
= CAN BAD
c) ~ ~
~ ".0o
v
.~
~ BAA BAA
~ ~ o
VIA cow
no
c) ~
~ o
En
BAA
~ o
~ - ~
By,
o .~
-
- ~
;^
¢
· - ~
En
~ A
no so. ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ l 'n l ~ cast
too Id
on ~ ~ ~ ~ `n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~=
or ~ too
c~) ~ ~) L^~-) (~\ ~ LAr) ~ ~\ ~)
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
o LAn ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o · c)
uo o ~
d)
s~
o
~
s-
o
c~A~ . .
·c) ~
~ o
)
~ ~ o
o ~ ¢
;= c~A~ ;^
so~ ~ ~
~ c~A~ ~
;^
c) ~ ~
~ ~ ~o
~o ~ ~
~A~
d ~
~ ~ o
~ ~' ~
·~ ~ ~
o ~
v, .
LAn o ~ ~ ~ uo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
LAn
o
·~
cd
- -
· - ~
~ ~A~
=¢
's ~ a c ~ 3 a~ ~ ~ ~
O ¢ ~ O O C) O ¢ O O O C~^.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^. ~ ~ ~ ~
t>~? t?~? ~
W W O
~' O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~0
· ·_4 · · · · _ · · · ~
. ~~ ~ . . . . ~ ~ O
=-Zo=~¢ ~
UO
OCR for page 12
2
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
The investment in facilities supports an even larger investment in human
resources. Industry and government studies have shown that the salaries paid to
the occupants of a commercial or institutional building each year are of the same
order of magnitude as the total costs of designing and constructing the building.
Therefore, an "Improvement of the productivity of the occupants . . . is the most
important performance characteristic for most constructed facilities" (NSTC,
1995).
LIFE CYCLES OF BUILDINGS
Buildings and other constructed facilities pass through a number of stages
during their lifetimes: planning, design, construction, commissioning/occupancy,
operation and use, renewal/revitalization, and disposal. Most constructed facili-
ties are designed to provide at least a minimum acceptable level of shelter and
service for 30 years. With proper management and maintenance) buildings may
perform adequately for 40 to 100 years or more and may serve several different
functions.
Buildings are complex structures with a number of separate but interrelated
components. The components of the building "envelope" include roofs, walls,
windows/doors, cladding materials (e.g., brick, stone, clapboard), and founda-
tions. Critical servicing components include mechanical, electrical, plumbing,
heating, air conditioning, ventilation, communications, fire, and safety systems.
Each component must perform well to optimize a building's performance and
service life and to provide a safe, healthy, and productive environment.
The service life, or period of time over which a building, component, or
subsystem actually provides adequate performance, depends on many factors.
The quality of a building's design, the durability of construction materials and
component systems, the incorporated technology, the location and climate, the
use and intensity of use, and damage caused by heavy storms, natural disasters, or
human error all influence how well and how quickly a building ages and the
amount of maintenance and repair a building requires over its life cycle. Although
a building's performance inevitably declines because of aging, wear and tear, and
functional changes, its service life can be optimized through adequate and timely
maintenance and repairs, as illustrated in Figure 1-1. Conversely, when mainte-
nance and repair activities are continuously deferred, the result can be an irrevers-
ible loss of service life.
iFor this study, "maintenance" is defined as the upkeep of property and equipment, i.e., work
necessary to realize the originally anticipated useful life of a fixed asset. "Repair" is defined as work
to restore damaged or worn-out property to a normal operating condition. An effective maintenance and
repair program includes several different types of activities that address different aspects/components
and have different objectives. Activities include preventive maintenance, programmed major mainte-
nance, predictive testing and inspection, routine repairs, and emergency service calls.
OCR for page 13
INTRODUCTION
r Optimum performance
a
13
Likely aging
without
normal maintenance
Likely aging
(without renewal) with
normal maintenance
Minimum
acceptable
performance
1\
, \
Service life lost
to poor maintenance
irreversible ', a,
,,
Design
service life
(not to scale)
Time ~
FIGURE 1-1 Effect of adequate and timely maintenance and repairs on the service life
of a building. Source: NRC, 1993.
The total cost of ownership of a facility is the "total of all expenditures an
owner will make over the course of the building's service lifetime" (NRC, 1990~.
Thus, an owner is responsible for funding not only planning, design, and con-
struction, but also maintenance, repairs, replacements, alterations, and normal
operations, such as heating, cooling, and lighting, and finally, demolition. Failure
to recognize these costs and provide adequate maintenance and repair results in a
shorter service life, more rapid deterioration, and higher operating costs over the
life cycle of a building.
FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE DETERIORATING
CONDITION OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
Despite the historic, cultural, and architectural importance of, and economic
investment in, federal facilities, evidence is mounting that the physical condition,
functionality, and quality of the federal facilities portfolio is deteriorating. In
response to Congressional inquiries, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has
published a number of reports documenting the deterioration of federal facilities
since 1990. These include NASA Maintenance: Stronger Commitment Needed
to Curb Facility Deterioration (GAO, 1990), Federal Buildings: Actions Needed
OCR for page 14
4
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
to Prevent Further Deterioration and Obsolescence (GAO, 1991), Federal Re-
search: Aging Federal Laboratories Need Repairs and Upgrades (GAO, 1993),
and National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to be Made About the Future of the
Parks (GAO, 1995b). To cite only two examples from these reports, "at Ellis
Island in New York, the nation' s only museum devoted exclusively to immigra-
tion, 32 of 36 historic buildings have seriously deteriorated, and, according to
park officials, about two-thirds of these buildings could be lost within 5 years if
not stabilized." In one building used for storing cultural artifacts, "much of the
collection is covered with dirt and debris from crumbling walls and peeling paint,
and leaky roofs have caused water damage to many artifacts" (GAO, 1995a). A
number of factors that contribute to the deteriorating condition of federal facili-
ties, are described below.
Focus on First Costs
The deteriorating condition of federal facilities is attributable, in part, to the
federal government's failure to recognize the total costs of facilities ownership.
Although the "costs to operate and maintain a facility vary between 60 and
85 percent of its total ownership cost" (Christian and Pandeya, 1997), govern-
ment budgeting practices have focused on the design and construction costs, or 5 to
10 percent of the total costs of ownership, the so-called "first" costs. (The re-
maining 5 to 35 percent of the costs of ownership include land acquisition, plan-
ning, renewal/revitalization, and disposal.)
The full life cycle costs of new facilities are not considered in the current
federal budget process. Instead, only the projected design and construction costs
appear as a separate line item for congressional consideration. The costs of oper-
ating and maintaining the new facility are not considered separately but become
part of the agency's total operations and maintenance budget request, which in-
cludes funding for all existing facilities. The costs of designing and constructing
a new facility, then, may receive considerable scrutiny during budget hearings,
but the budget process is so structured that the 60 to 85 percent of the total costs,
the costs of operating and maintaining the facility, do not receive the same scru-
tiny. Thus, the federal budget process is not structured to consider the total costs
of facilities ownership.
Inadequate Funding for Maintenance and Repair
Inadequate funding for the maintenance and repair of public buildings at all
levels of government and academia is a long-standing and well documented prob-
lem. A report by the National Research Council in 1990, Committing to the Cost
of Ownership: Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings, found that "Under-
funding is a widespread and persistent problem that undermines maintenance and
repair of public buildings" (NRC, 1990~. A 1996 study by the Civil Engineering
OCR for page 15
INTRODUCTION
15
Research Foundation reconfirmed this finding, noting that "underfunding of fa-
cilities maintenance and repair projects appears to be a widespread problem in
both the public and private sectors" (CERF, 1996~. On the subject of federal
facilities, GAO has reported that, "mounting evidence shows that the federal gov-
ernment must also face up to the long-term consequences of inadequate capital
investment in existing federal buildings" (GAO, 1991~. More recently, GAO has
found that "despite reductions in DoD's [U.S. Department of Defense] basing
infrastructure, various DoD and service officials have continued to indicate that
they still have excess, aging facilities and insufficient funding to maintain, repair,
and update them" (GAO, 1997~.
There is no single, agreed-upon guideline to determine how much money is
adequate to maintain public buildings effectively. However, Committing to the
Cost of Ownership: Maintenance and Repair of Public Buildings did recommend
that, "An appropriate budget allocation for routine M&R [maintenance and re-
pair] 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" (NRC,
1990~. This guideline has been widely quoted in the facilities management litera-
ture. During the course of this study, federal agency representatives who briefed
the committee or completed questionnaires indicated that the funding they re-
ceived annually for maintenance and repair was less than 2 percent of the aggre-
gate current replacement value of their agencies' facilities inventories.2 The Na-
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), for example, reported the
maintenance and repair funding it currently receives to be about 1.3 percent of the
current replacement value of all its facilities, and the Architect of the Capitol's
Office reported funding of about 1.7 percent.
Deferred Maintenance
If funds are not available to address identified maintenance and repair needs,
these projects may be deferred or delayed indefinitely. Deferred maintenance is
defined in the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards Number 6,
Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, as "maintenance that was not
performed when it should have been or was scheduled to be, and which, there-
fore, is put off or delayed for a future period" (GAO, 1998~. Deferred mainte-
nance, also called unfunded maintenance, backlog of maintenance and repair, or
unaccomplished maintenance, is generally quantified as the estimated cost of the
maintenance and repair needed to bring a facility up to a minimum acceptable
condition. The significance of the existence of deferred maintenance is that it
"implies that the quality and/or reliability of service provided by infrastructure on
2Agencies responding to the questionnaire included the U.S. Department of Energy, the Depart-
ment of the Army/Installations, the International Broadcasting Bureau, the National Institute of Stan-
dards and Technology, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Office of the Air
Force Civil Engineer.
OCR for page 16
6
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
which maintenance has been deferred is lower than it should be, and thus the
infrastructure is not or will not later be adequately serving the public" (Urban
Institute, 1994~. A report by the American Public Works Association, Plan. Pre-
dict. Prevent. How to Reinvest in Public Buildings, found that "in the short-term,
deferring maintenance will diminish the quality of building services. In the long-
term, deferred maintenance can lead to shortened building life and reduced asset
value" (APWA, 1992~. In a series of reports, the GAO came to the following
conclusions about the deferred maintenance of federal facilities:
The Pentagon is a classic example of the federal government's failure to invest
adequately in federal buildings . . . Needed structural repairs and upgrades to the
Pentagon were deferred for more than a decade, and the General Services Ad-
ministration (GSA) now estimates that its renovation will cost more than
$1 billion and take at least 13 years to complete (GAO, 19911.
Other federal buildings have been neglected . . . and now need major repairs and
alterations to bring them up to acceptable quality, health and safety standards.
The total number of federal buildings with deferred major repair and alteration
requirements is unknown but our work suggests that the number may be sub-
stantial. Continuing to defer needed repairs and alterations accelerates deteriora-
tion and obsolescence and results in higher eventual costs to the government . . .
(GAO, 1991~.
Most federal research laboratories are experiencing common problems with ag-
ing facilities leaking roofs and gutters, drafty window frames, power outages,
and poor ventilating systems that do not meet industry standards for air circula-
tion . . . the eight agencies GAO reviewed reported backlogs of more than
$3.8 billion in needed laboratory repairs (GAO, 1993~.
The overall level of visitor services offered by the National Park Service is dete-
riorating. Visitor services are being cut back and the condition of many trails,
campgrounds, exhibits, and other facilities is declining. The Park Service esti-
mates that since 1988, the backlog of deferred maintenance has more than
doubled to $4 billion (GAO, l995b).
The magnitude of the numbers cited by agencies indicates that significant
needed maintenance and repairs have been deferred because of underfunding or
other factors. Historically, public officials have not often found the arguments for
maintenance and repair funding compelling and have called into question the
methodologies used to define building deficiencies and to calculate the costs in-
volved in repairing theme One reason for this skepticism is that although "the
amount of deferred maintenance is important in itself, without also including
3Fiscal year 1998 is the first year in which federal agencies are required to report periodically on
deferred maintenance by disclosing deferred maintenance in agency financial statements. Previously,
some but not all federal agencies kept inventories of building deficiencies and the funding required to
eliminate them; others provided maintenance needs estimates for budgetary purposes and ad hoc
reports.
OCR for page 17
INTRODUCTION
17
information on the implications of deferral, public officials and the public will
have considerable difficulty in interpreting the deferred maintenance figures"
(Urban Institute, 1994~. A second reason relates to the lack of a standard method-
ology for defining and quantifying deferred maintenance. The concern has been
that inappropriate items have been included in the maintenance backlog to in-
crease the overall estimate and argue for larger budget appropriations.
Agencies have also used different formulas or standards to compute the costs
of eliminating the backlog. This situation may not be improved significantly by
new reporting requirements of Federal Financial Accounting Standard Number 6
because under this standard "it is management's responsibility to . . . establish
methods to estimate and report any material amounts of deferred maintenance"
(GAO, 1998~.
Aging of Facilities
The federal facilities portfolio includes structures that span centuries of dif-
ferent planning, design, construction, maintenance, management, and mission
requirements. The average age of the federal facilities portfolio by square footage
or by current replacement value is not known because accurate data are not avail-
able. However, it is safe to say that a large proportion of the facilities in the
federal portfolio are already 40 to 50 years old. More than half of the 8,000 office
buildings managed by the General Services Administration are more than 50 years
old, and the U.S. State Department estimates the average age of facilities to be 39
years. Even in a "space age" agency like NASA, the average age of its facilities is
approximately 40 years. As facilities age, wear and tear on building components
increases, and electrical, mechanical, and other systems, begin to break down.
The rate and onset of breakdowns increases if maintenance has been implemented
haphazardly or not at all, and the operating condition deteriorates. Aging facilities
require more, not less, maintenance and repair to keep them operating effectively.
Lack of Information to Justify Maintenance and Repair Budgets
In the federal budget and operations environment, facilities maintenance and
repair is often deemed to be a low priority issue because facilities program man-
agers do not have the information they need to present their case for funding to
senior managers and public officials. "Interviews indicate that public officials,
such as elected officials and chief administrative officers, find the most convinc-
ing and compelling information to be the future costs that can be avoided by
undertaking early, preventive, or corrective maintenance activities" (Urban Insti-
tute, 1994~. However, there is "very little study of the costs and implications of
deferring maintenance . . . and cost avoidance information is lacking" (Urban
Institute, 1994~. Estimates of the implications of deferred maintenance on cost
and quality of service are also lacking even though public officials "appear to
OCR for page 18
8
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
believe such information to be of considerable use" (Urban Institute, 1994~. Be-
cause information on maintenance and repair issues most convincing to public
officials, particularly avoiding future costs, is not available, and because the in-
formation that is available, such as the backlog of deferred maintenance, is not
compelling, facilities program managers have found it difficult to justify their
maintenance and repair budget requests to senior executives and public officials.
Lack of Accountability for Stewardship
Buildings are durable assets constructed to last at least 30 years; but they are
composed of a number of components with service lives of less than 10 years.
Buildings themselves seldom fail in an obvious, catastrophic sense. The deterio-
ration of individual components generally occurs over time and may not be readily
apparent: detecting the incipient deterioration of roofs, mechanical and electrical
systems, pipes, and foundations requires regular inspections by trained person-
nel. Once detected through regular inspections or condition assessments, rela-
tively small problems can be repaired before they develop into much more seri-
ous problems through an adequately planned and funded maintenance program.
Because facility deterioration occurs over a long period of time, it may ap-
pear to senior executives and public officials that the maintenance and repair of
facilities can always be deferred one more year without serious consequences in
favor of more urgent operations that have greater visibility. Unless a roof actually
falls in, senior managers are not likely to be held accountable for the condition of
a facility in any given year. Yet they are held accountable for current operations.
Consequently, public officials and senior executives have few incentives to prac-
tice effective stewardship of the federal facilities portfolio and are subject to few
penalties if they do not.
CONSEQUENCES AND COSTS OF INADEQUATE MAINTENANCE
Continuously deferring adequate maintenance and repair can result in major
damage to facilities, disruptions in service and business, and costly and serious
health and safety consequences, as the following examples illustrate:
On May 26, 1989, at NASA's Lewis Research Center, a high pressure steam shutoff
valve ruptured in the basement of the Library Services Building. The valve's
failure was partially attributed to badly deteriorated piping supports in a steam
line tunnel. Although the tunnel had inspection access holes, the piping supports
were not included in a maintenance program. Heavy rains that flooded the tunnel
caused steam to condense in the pipes and created a water hammer effect (a
concussion of moving water against the sides of a containing pipe or vessel such
as a steam pipe). The vibration of the poorly supported steam pipes caused the
valve to rupture. In addition to damage to the valve and piping, high-pressure
steam damaged two interior walls, an office, ceiling tiles, painted surfaces, and
OCR for page 19
INTRODUCTION
wall paneling throughout the building. The building was without steam service for
5 months, and the cost of repairs exceeded $1 million (GAO, 1990~.
In August 1990, a small fire broke out at the Pentagon.
While the fire was being extinguished, an old, deteriorated 10-inch water pipe
broke and flooded 350,000 square feet in the basement heating plant, the pri-
mary electrical switching room, and the Air Force's Communications Center.
The basement heating plant was out of service for 2 days. Besides disrupting
electrical power and interfering with Air Force operations, the flood resulted in
approximately $500,000 in property damages (GAO, 1991~.
19
The Nassif Building in Washington, D.C., a leased office facility of approxi-
mately 1.1 million square feet constructed in 1969, is the headquarters of the U.S.
Department of Transportation. In October 1995, several employees complained
of symptoms generally suggestive of "Sick Building Syndrome." As a result of
these and many other complaints, DOT began an extensive investigation of the
causes, including sampling and testing of the indoor environment, inspection of
the building and mechanical systems, and medical examinations of affected em-
ployees. Significant findings from studies conducted in support of this investiga-
tion found that more than 50 percent of the roof drains on the building were
leaking water into the tenth floor ceiling (DOT, 1996a), two of the four main
ventilating units were so worn they were nonoperational and probably had been
for some time, and that the overall quality of maintenance of the ventilation sys-
tem was poor (DOT, 1996b). In a report on the indoor air quality of the building,
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration recommended that mainte-
nance plans and procedures be developed to respond to water leaks and the conse-
quences of leaks and to inhibit microbial growth in the domestic hot water system
(OSHA, 1995~. A massive building cleaning and repair program required the
temporary relocation offsite of personnel on a floor-by-floor basis. Not counting
adverse health effects, losses in productivity, or any future legal claims, the cost
to the government will exceed $13 million (Spillenkothen, 1997~.
These incidents are not isolated instances of the consequences and costs of
inadequate maintenance. They illustrate the conditions in many federal facilities
and other public buildings. In all likelihood, incidents like these will happen more
frequently in the future. A 1997 study of U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
facilities stated that officials at Army headquarters reported that "many of its [the
Army's] installations are in a 'breakdown maintenance mode,' resulting in in-
creases in emergency repairs and equipment breakdowns." At one installation,
"emergency work orders increased from less than 300 for fiscal year 1992 to over
20,000 for fiscal year 1996," and "over 45 waterlines broke in fiscal year 1996."
Navy headquarters officials reported that "funding levels allow only preventive
maintenance on mission-critical systems, such as electrical and water pump dis-
tribution systems. The preventive maintenance is limited to inexpensive repairs
that take as little as 15 minutes" (GAO, 1997~.
OCR for page 20
20
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
BASIS FOR THIS STUDY
In the NRC report, Committing to the Cost of Ownership: Maintenance and
Repair of Public Buildings, guidelines were recommended for developing main-
tenance and repair budgets for facilities in the absence of detailed cost estimates:
M&R [maintenance and repair] budgets should be structured to identify explic-
itly 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 facili-
ties (NRC, 1990~.
ldentitied factors that can have a major influence on the appropriate level of
M&R expenditures included building size and complexity, types of finishes, cur-
rent age and condition, mechanical and electrical system technologies, telecom-
munications and security technologies, historic or community value, type of oc-
cupants or users, climatic severity, churn (i.e., tenancy turnover rates), criticality
of role or function, ownership time horizon, labor prices, energy prices, materials
prices, and distances between buildings in inventory. That report also suggested
two additional areas of study: formalized condition assessment programs (includ-
ing the role of technology); and staff capabilities to carry out condition assess-
ment and M&R budgeting functions.
Based on the information available to the committee, no federal agency has
consistently achieved a funding level equivalent of 2 to 4 percent of the aggregate
current replacement value of its facilities inventory. In fact, other trends in the
federal government have increased the pressure on maintenance and repair bud-
gets. In an operating environment of declining resources, federal facilities pro-
gram managers are faced with a number of challenges:
.
.
maintaining a relatively stable number of facilities
· extending the useful life of aging facilities
meeting evolving requirements for safety, environmental quality, and
accessibility
· altering or retrofitting facilities to consolidate space or accommodate new
functions or technologies
· overcoming institutional barriers to becoming more businesslike in their
operations
· finding new ways to optimize available resources
Against this background, the sponsoring agencies of the Federal Facilities
Council4 determined that it would be appropriate to revisit the issue of budgeting
techniques and activities for facility maintenance and repair and requested that a
follow-up study to the 1990 report be done.
4The agencies that provided funding for this study through the Federal Facilities Council include
the Of floe of the Air Force Civil Engineer, the Air National Guard, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
OCR for page 21
INTRODUCTION
2
STATEMENT OF TASK
The objectives of the follow-up study were to: (1) develop a methodology
and rationale federal facilities program managers could use for the systematic
formulation and justification of facility maintenance and repair budgets; (2) in-
vestigate the role of technology in performing automated condition assessments;
and (3) identify staff capabilities necessary to perform condition assessments and
develop maintenance and repair budgets. The Committee to Assess Techniques
for Developing Maintenance and Repair Budgets for Federal Facilities was ap-
pointed by the National Research Council under the auspices of the Board on
Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment. The committee members have a
broad base of expertise including: government facilities budgeting and manage-
ment, facilities operations and maintenance, public finance, building performance,
facility technology and value engineering, computer applications for facility man-
agement, and condition assessments. The committee members have worked in
federal, state, and local government agencies, private industry, and academia.
(See Appendix A for biographical sketches.)
Throughout this study, the committee was hampered by a lack of published
data related to federal facilities inventories, programs, and practices. Accurate
counts of basic items such as the total number of federal facilities, the age of
facilities, expenditures for maintenance and repair, were simply not available (see
findings and recommendations). The committee also found that the state of prac-
tice in maintenance and repair budgeting procedures, definitions, and accounting
had advanced little since 1990. For information on the physical condition of fed-
eral facilities, maintenance and repair budgeting, condition assessment practices,
deferred maintenance, and related topics, the committee relied heavily on GAO
reports, briefings by federal agency program managers, and personal experience.
The committee began task 1 with the idea that it could develop a methodol-
ogy for the systematic formulation of maintenance and repair budgets. However,
the current state of practice, the general lack of data, and the lack of research
results in particular precluded the development of a methodology per se. The
committee instead identified potential methods, principles, and strategies that, if
implemented, could become the basis for the development of a methodology in
the future.
In approaching task 2, the committee reviewed federal agency condition as-
sessment practices and the role of technology in developing automated condition
assessments. The committee found that existing sensor and microprocessor
the U.S. Department of Energy, the Naval Facilities Engineering Command, the Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, the Food and Drug Administration, the General Services Administration, the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Science Foundation,
the Smithsonian Institution, the International Broadcasting Bureau, the U.S. Public Health Service,
and the U.S. Postal Service.
OCR for page 22
22
STEWARDSHIP OF FEDERAL FACILITIES
technologies have the potential to monitor and manage a range of building condi-
tions and environmental parameters, but, for economic and other reasons, they
have not been widely deployed. In its review of the staff capabilities necessary to
perform condition assessments and develop maintenance and repair budgets
(task 3), the committee found that adequate training for staff is a key component
in effective decision making in both facilities management and maintenance and
repair budgeting.
ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT
The succeeding chapters of this report address the statement of task in the
following manner. Chapter 2 focuses on a wide range of issues related to the
management and maintenance of federal facilities, including the federal budget
process, the federal facilities portfolio, and the availability of maintenance and
repair related data. Chapter 3 describes condition assessment practices, technolo-
gies, and issues. Chapter 4 presents a strategic framework for the maintenance
and repair of federal facilities. Chapter 5 summarizes the study's findings and
recommendations.
REFERENCES
APWA (American Public Works Association). 1992. Plan. Predict. Prevent. How to Reinvest in Pub-
lic Buildings. Special Report #62. Chicago: American Public Works Association.
Christian, J., and A. Pandeya, 1997. Cost predictions of facilities. Journal of Management in Engi-
neering 13(1): 52-61.
CERF (Civil Engineering Research Foundation). 1996. Level of Investment Study: U.S. Air Force
Facilities and Infrastructure Maintenance and Repair. Washington, D.C.: Civil Engineering
Research Foundation.
DOT (U.S. Department of Transportation). 1996a. Mechanical System Baseline Testing, U.S. Depart-
ment of Transportation, Nassif Building, Washington, D.C. Chapters 8 and 9. Report by Sum-
mer Consultants, McLean, Virginia.
DOT. 1996b. Mechanical System Baseline Testing, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nassif Build-
ing, Washington, D.C., 31 March 1996. Report by Summer Consultants, McLean, Virginia.
GAO (General Accounting Office). 1990. NASA Maintenance: Stronger Commitment Needed to
Curb Facility Deterioration. Report to the Chair, Subcommittee on VA, HUD and Independent
Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate. NSIAD-91-34. Washington, D.C.: Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
GAO. 1991. Federal Buildings: Actions Needed to Prevent Further Deterioration and Obsolescence.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Works and Transportation, U.S. House of
Representatives. GGD-91-57. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
GAO. 1993. Federal Research: Aging Federal Laboratories Need Repairs and Upgrades. Testimony.
T-RCED-93-71. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
GAO. 1995a. National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to be Made About the Future of the Parks.
Chapter Report. RCED-95-238. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
GAO. 1995b. National Parks: Difficult Choices Need to be Made About the Future of the Parks.
Testimony. T-RCED-95-124. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
OCR for page 23
INTRODUCTION
23
GAO. 1997. Defense Infrastructure: Demolition of Unneeded Buildings Can Help Avoid Operating
Costs. Report to the Chair, Subcommittee on Military Installations and Facilities, Committee on
National Security, U.S. House of Representatives. NSIAD-97-125. Washington, D.C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office.
GAO. 1998. Deferred Maintenance Reporting: Challenges to Implementation. Report to the Chair-
man, Committee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate. AIMD-98-42. Washington, D.C.: Govern-
ment Printing Office.
NRC (National Research Council). 1990. Committing to the Cost of Ownership: Maintenance and
Repair of Public Buildings. Building Research Board, National Research Council. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
NRC. 1993. The Fourth Dimension in Building: Strategies for Minimizing Obsolescence. Building
Research Board, National Research Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NSTC (National Science and Technology Council). 1995. Construction and Building: Federal Re-
search and Development in Support of the U.S. Construction Industry. Washington, D.C.: Gov-
ernment Printing Office.
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration). 1995. Indoor Air Quality Investigation,
Nassif Building in Washington, D.C., Salt Lake City Technical Center Report.
Spillenkothen, M. 1997. Personal communication between Melissa Spillenkothen, Assistant Secre-
tary for Administration, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C. and Richard Little,
Director, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., May 7, 1997.
Urban Institute. 1994. Issues in Deferred Maintenance. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
deferred maintenance
