|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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 R1
STEWARDSHIP
OF FEDERAL
FACILITIES
A Proactive Strategy
for Managing the Nation's
Public Assets
Committee to Assess Techniques for Developing
Maintenance and Repair Buclgets for Fecleral Facilities
Boarcl on Infrastructure and the Constructecl Environment
Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems
National Research Council
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS
Washington, D.C. 1998
OCR for page R2
NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS · 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. · Washington, DC 20418
NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the
National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of
Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the
committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for
appropriate balance.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished
scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and
technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by
the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on
scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences.
The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National
Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its
administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the
responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also spon-
sors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and
recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William Wulf is president of the National
Academy of Engineering.
The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure
the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters
pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National
Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and,
upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I.
Shine is President of the Institute of Medicine.
The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to
associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering
knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies
determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the
National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the
government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered
jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce Alberts and Dr. William Wulf are
chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council.
This study was supported by Contract No. S-FBOAD-94-C-0023 between the National Academy
of Sciences and the Department of State on behalf of the Federal Facilities Council. Any opinions,
findings, conclusions, and recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and
do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this
project.
International Standard Book Number: 0-309-06189-X
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 98-87971
Available in limited supply from: Federal Facilities Council, HA 274, 2101 Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20418, (202) 334-3374
Additional copies available for sale from: National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Box 285, Washington, D.C.20055,1 -800-624-6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropoli-
tan area). http://www.nap.edu
Copyright 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Printed in the United States of America.
OCR for page R3
COMMITTEE TO ASSESS TECHNIQUES FOR
DEVELOPING MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
BUDGETS FOR FEDERAL FACILITIES
JACK E. BUFFINGTON, chair, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
ALBERT F. APPLETON, Regional Plan Association, New York, New York
GARY G. BRIGGS, Consolidated Engineering Services, Arlington, Virginia
SEBASTIAN J. CALANNI, Johnson Controls Worldwide Services (retired),
Cape Canaveral, Florida
ERIC T. DILLINGER, Carter & Burgess, Inc., Fort Worth, Texas
WILLIAM L. GREGORY, Kennametal, Inc., Latrobe, Pennsylvania
B. JAMES HALPERN, Measuring and Monitoring Services, Inc., Tinton Falls,
New Jersey
JAMES E. KEE, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
VIVIAN E. LOFTNESS, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
TERRANCE C. RYAN, George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia
RICHARD L. SIEGLE, Washington State Historical Society, Tacoma
GEORGE M. WHITE, Leo A. Daly, Inc., Washington, D.C.
Staff
RICHARD G. LITTLE, Director, Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed
Environment
LYNDA L. STANLEY, Study Director
JOHN A. WALEWSKI, Program Officer
LORI J. DUPREE, Administrative Assistant
. . .
OCR for page R4
BOARD ON INFRASTRUCTURE AND THE
CONSTRUCTED ENVIRONMENT (1996-1998)
WALTER B. MOORE, chair, Texas A&M University, College Station (until
June 1998)
GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, chair, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn,
New York (until May 1997)
BRENDA MYERS BOHLKE, Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc., Herndon, Virginia
CATHERINE BROWN, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis (until
April 1998)
NANCY RUTLEDGE CONNERY, Public Works Infrastructure, Woolwich,
Maine
RICHARD DATTNER, Richard Dattner Architect, P.C., New York, New York
LLOYD A. DUSCHA, Reston, Virginia (until May 1997)
CHRISTOPHER M. GORDON, Massachusetts Port Authority, Boston
ALBERT A. GRANT, Potomac, Maryland (until May 1997)
NEIL GRIGG, Colorado State University, Fort Collins
DELON HAMPTON, Delon Hampton & Associates, Washington, D.C.
SUSAN E. HANSON, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts
E.R. (VALD) HEIBERG, III, Heiberg Associates, Inc., Mason Neck, Virginia
(until November 1997)
RONALD W. JENSEN, City of Phoenix, Phoenix, Arizona (until May 1997)
JAMES O. JIRSA, University of Texas, Austin
GEORGE D. LEAL, Dames & Moore, Inc., Los Angeles, California
VIVIAN E. LOFTNESS, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
GARY T. MOORE, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee (until September 1997)
Staff
RICHARD G. LITTLE, Director
LYNDA L. STANLEY, Director, Federal Facilities Council
JOHN A. WALEWSKI, Program Officer
LORI J. DUPREE, Administrative Assistant
V
OCR for page R5
Preface
Buildings and other constructed facilities represent investments made by
owners in anticipation of the shelter and services they will provide to the people
using them and the activities performed within them. Easily recognized facilities
like the White House, the U.S. Capitol, and the Washington Monument are im-
portant symbols of the American government at home and abroad. Historic and
architecturally significant facilities, however, represent only a small fraction of
the more than 500,000 buildings and other structures, and their associated infra-
structure, that have been acquired by the federal government to support defense
and foreign policy missions; house historic, cultural, and artistic artifacts; serve
as workplaces for scientists, engineers, educators, and researchers; and provide
services to the American public.
Stakeholders in these federal facilities include the American public, whose
tax dollars have been invested in acquiring and maintaining them and who regu-
larly use and depend on the services supported by these facilities but who are
increasingly critical of the cost of government; Congress, which appropriates the
funding to acquire and maintain them; federal employees, who conduct the busi-
ness of government; and foreign tourists, who visit these facilities.
The ownership of real property entails an investment in the present and a
commitment to the future. Ownership of facilities by the federal government, or
any other entity, represents an obligation that requires not only money to carry
out that ownership responsibly, but also the vision, resolve, experience, and ex-
pertise to ensure that resources are allocated effectively to sustain that invest-
ment. Recognition and acceptance of this obligation is the essence of steward-
ship. Yet, despite the millions of stakeholders and the expenditure of hundreds of
billions of taxpayer dollars in federal facilities, we have not been good stewards
of our public buildings. The continuing deterioration of federal facilities is appar-
ent to the most casual observer and has been documented by numerous studies.
Still, little has been done to check the decline, and few people in the government
are willing to accept responsibility for it.
v
OCR for page R6
v!
PREFACE
Inadequate funding for maintenance and repair programs in the federal govern-
ment is a long-standing problem. Plans and programs for maintenance have received
little support from executive or legislative decision makers for several reasons. First,
there is a tacit assumption that maintenance can always be put off for a month, a
year, or even five years in favor of current operations and more visible projects with
seemingly higher payoffs. Second, managers of federal agencies have generally
failed to convince the public or political decision makers that funds invested in pre-
ventive and timely maintenance will be cost effective, will protect the quality and
functionality of facilities, and will protect the taxpayers' investment. Thus, decision
makers, who tend to have short-term outlooks, have not often been swayed to
support actions with results that are realized over the long term.
Properly maintained federal facilities are not a luxury. They are critical to the
effective performance of government agencies' missions and the provision of
government services to the public. Inadequate maintenance in public buildings
can have serious and costly consequences: damage caused by leaking roofs, burst
pipes, and malfunctioning ventilation systems can cause disruptions of work, com-
puter and other technological breakdowns, risks to occupants' health and safety,
lost productivity, and millions of dollars in emergency repairs.
We cannot continue to ignore the consequences of undermaintaining our pub-
lic buildings. Disinvestment is causing an inexorable and unacceptable degrada-
tion of the nation's public assets and a decline in the functionality and quality of
federal facilities. The investment made in these assets warrants sustained, appro-
priately timed and targeted maintenance. Responsible investment in, and stew-
ardship of, public buildings would optimize their service life, would be cost ef-
fective over the life of the facilities, and would contribute to a safer, healthier,
more productive environment for the American public, foreign visitors, employ-
ees, and the officials who use these facilities every day.
In these times of decreasing budgets and downsizing, many interests must
compete for limited resources. This study is not simply a call for increased expen-
ditures for the maintenance and repair of federal facilities. It recommends a ratio-
nale and strategy for facility management, maintenance, and accountability for
stewardship that will optimize limited resources while protecting the value and
functionality of the nation's public buildings and other constructed facilities.
We have a significant opportunity to strategically redirect federal facilities
management and maintenance practices for the twenty-first century. This will
require long-term vision, commitment, leadership, and stewardship by both fed-
eral decision makers and agency managers. The results will be a significant im-
provement in the quality and performance of our federal facilities, lower overall
maintenance costs, and protection of our public investment.
JACK E. BUFFINGTON
Chair, Committee to Assess Techniques for
Developing Maintenance and Repair Budgets
for Federal Facilities
OCR for page R7
Acknowledgments
This report has been reviewed by individuals chosen for their diverse per-
spectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the
National Research Council's (NRC's) Report Review Committee. The purpose
of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will
assist the authors and the NRC in making the published report as sound as pos-
sible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity,
evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The contents of the review
comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the
deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their partici-
pation in the review of this report:
Mr. Harry Hatry, The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.
Dr. Cameron Gordon, University of Southern California-Washington Center,
Washington, D.C.
Dr. Harvey Kaiser, Consultant, Syracuse, New York
Mr. Douglas Kincaid, Applied Management Engineering, Virginia Beach, Virginia
Mr. Harold Odom, Florida Department of Management Services, Tallahassee
Dr. Alan Steiss, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Although the individuals listed above have provided many constructive com-
ments and suggestions, responsibility for the final content of this report rests
solely with the authoring committee and the NRC.
vie
OCR for page R8
OCR for page R9
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1
INTRODUCTION .
Life Cycles of Buildings, 12
Factors Contributing to the Deteriorating Condition of
Federal Facilities, 13
Consequences and Costs of Inadequate Maintenance, 18
Basis for This Study, 20
Statement of Task, 21
Organization of the Report, 22
References, 22
10
RELATED ISSUES 24
Federal Budget Process, 24
Federal Facilities Portfolio, 32
Availability of Maintenance and Repair-Related Data, 36
References, 40
CONDITION ASSESSMENTS 42
Components of a Condition Assessment and Capital Assets
Management Program, 42
Use of Condition Assessments by Federal Agencies, 46
Role of Technology, 49
Issues Related to Condition Assessments, 56
References, 57
STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 59
Fostering Accountability for the Stewardship of Federal Facilities, 62
Strategic Allocation of Resources, 74
References, 81
Six
OCR for page R10
x
5
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Findings, 84
Recommendations, 91
Reference, 97
APPENDIX
A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members
BIBLIOGRAPHY
CONTENTS
83
01
108
