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

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 maintenance and repairs—activities directed toward keeping fixed assets in a condition to effectively support the mission. Activities include preventive maintenance, repairs, replacement of parts and structural components, and other activities needed to preserve the asset so that it continues to support the mission. Maintenance and repairs exclude activities aimed at expanding the capacity of an asset or otherwise upgrading it to serve needs different from, or significantly greater than its current use. 5 deferred maintenance and repairs—maintenance and repairs that were not performed when they should have been or were scheduled to be and which, therefore, were put off or delayed for a future period. ISSUES AND POTENTIAL APPROACHES RELATED TO METHODOLOGIES FOR DEFERRED MAINTENANCE REPORTING FASAB Standard Number 6, as amended, specifies that federal agencies report dollar amounts of deferred maintenance based on methodologies that use condition assessment surveys, a total life-cycle cost method 6 , or their equivalent. Applying explicit methodologies (or their equivalent) to a broad class of assets again can be problematic in the case of a specific class. For example, the data elements for the total life-cycle cost method required by FASAB Standard Number 6 are not reflective of facilities management practices. Condition assessment surveys are a recognized, valid, facilities management tool for identifying and reporting maintenance and repair needs. However, concerns were raised that the standard implies or could be interpreted to imply that condition assessment information should be available for all facilities in an inventory and that such information should be updated annually. In practice, the availability of condition assessment data varies widely from agency to agency. For those agencies that have instituted inventory-wide condition assessment programs, facilities are typically inspected on a cycle of every three to five years or longer. In Chapter 3 of this report, the committee identifies a number of alternative methodologies that are similar to condition assessment surveys or the total life-cycle cost method or combine elements of the two. Allowing agencies greater flexibility in choosing methodologies, including statistical sampling, to report deferred maintenance and repairs for facilities may help to better align the objectives and methodologies of federal financial reporting and FASAB Standard Number 6, as amended. 5 During the review process, alternative wording was suggested. The alternatives are noted in Chapter 2. 6 Throughout FASAB Standard Number 6, life cycle costing is described or defined using several terms. The terms life cycle cost plans, life cycle cost forecasts, life cycle costing and total life cycle cost method are used interchangeably. In order to remain consistent, this report uses one term, total life cycle cost method.