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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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~.
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,
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.
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.
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.
