EXECUTIVE CORNER
NASA Coordinated Approach to Federal Real Property Asset Management Sets a Worthy Example
Recent IG Report validates NASA approach; cites deficiencies in current implementation of Agency-wide Master Plan.
Just three weeks ago, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Inspector General (IG) released its audit report on NASA’s infrastructure and facilities planning. The bottom line was that—while deficiencies were found in some plan components, NASA was commended for its positive step in developing its first integrated real property master plan to better manage its diverse real property
assets.
By way of background, NASA has a lot of aging facilities that are in less than desirable condition and which do not necessarily align well with the agency’s evolving missions. Their real property portfolio includes more than 5,000 buildings and other specialized structures, such as wind tunnels, laboratories, launch pads, and test stands. All together, these assets comprise 44 million square feet of built structures representing a replacement value of more than $29 billion. Over 80 percent of this inventory is more than 40 years old and reaching the end of their functional life spans.
Adding complexity to this current situation, NASA is undergoing considerable changes in their mission focus and the Space Shuttle Program has been terminated after a 39-year run. All this creates significant uncertainty about the facilities the agency will need for their next space launch program. Moreover, NASA is dealing with these challenges when growing budget deficits are straining resources for all federal agencies.
Further, Congress directed the agency—in the 2010 NASA Authorization Act—to examine its real property assets and downsize its portfolio to fit current and future missions and expected funding levels “paying particular attention to identifying and removing unneeded or duplicative infrastructure.” Thus, the Agency is in the unenviable position of making exceptionally difficult decisions about its infrastructure under a cloud of external constraints.
In addition, during the 2012 budget process, OMB cut NASA’s projected budget for facility upgrades from $1.7 billion to $750 million for the period 2013 to 2017. Responding to these changes, the Agency established its own goal of cutting its $29 billion infrastructure CRV (current replacement value) 10% by 2020 and 15% by
2055.
To deal with these new realities, NASA is developing its first integrated agency-wide real property master plan. Actually, these efforts have been underway since 2008 with a strategy of consolidating individual real property plans developed by each of the agency’s ten geographically distinct component Centers. The intent is to guide portfolio decision-making and development planning while considering shared programmatic objectives and integrated proposals. This would permit NASA to most effectively distribute resources while ensuring that Center plans align with overall agency missions. Completion of this planning initiative was projected for the end of calendar year 2011.
The IG noted three primary deficiencies that might limit the initial master plan’s usefulness in better managing its diverse real property assets. They were:
- The initial agency-wide master plan is based on individual Center master plans that were developed using funding assumptions for recapitalization which are no longer realistic;
- Half the Centers did not develop master plans that addressed a reduction in their real property footprint in accordance with Agency goals; and
- Restrictive criteria the Agency uses in prioritizing overall funding for facilities construction projects discouraged some Centers from submitting their top priorities for funding.
The IG report went on to make specific recommendations for addressing these shortcomings, in which NASA leadership has concurred.
The important lesson here is that, through this Agency-wide master planning process, NASA is demonstrating worthy leadership in addressing the many complexities of developing a real property asset management plan that reflects anticipated funding levels and is fully representative of the Agency’s needs and its various Centers. This is a very positive is step intended to tackle the Agency’s challenges in prioritizing its needs in a way that ensures the vitality of its infrastructure while reducing its real property footprint. Other federal agencies could learn from NASA’s example.
Check out our blog for additional thoughts on this.
David Baxa
CEO
VISTAtsi
|
|
 |
|
