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.
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
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.
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 . . .
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
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
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
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
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
x 5 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Findings, 84 Recommendations, 91 Reference, 97 APPENDIX A Biographical Sketches of Committee Members BIBLIOGRAPHY CONTENTS 83 01 108