Detailed Information on the
National Nuclear Security Administration: Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program Assessment

Monitor actual results and change the program accordingly.

Review all infrastructure programs to ensure that there is no overlap between the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program and other infrastructure-related programs.

Measure: Annual dollar value and cumulative percentage of FY 2003 deferred maintenance baseline of $1.2 billion funded for elimination by FY 2013

Explanation:

Measure: Annual gross square feet (gsf) of NNSA excess facilities space funded for elimination and cumulative percentage of FY2002-FY2009 total goal of three million gsf eliminated

Explanation:

Measure: Annual NNSA complex-wide aggregate Facility Condition Index (FCI), as measured by deferred maintenance per replacement plant value, for all mission-essential facilities and infrastructure (the industry standard is below 5%)

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The mission of the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is to restore, rebuild and revitalize the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex by directly funding maintenance and infrastructure activities above current operating levels. Programs across the entire National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) complex are integrated and prioritized on one list. The goal is to significantly increase the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the NNSA weapons complex sites.

Evidence: "Report to Congress on the Organization and Operations of the NNSA (Feb 02); NNSA Strategic Plan (Feb 02); NNSA Future Years Nuclear Security Program (FYNSP) March 02; "

Does the program address a specific interest, problem or need?

Explanation: "Numerous internal and external reports, studies, and audits have highlighted the deteriorating condition of the existing Nuclear Weapons Complex. NNSA initiated the program to better direct resources against deteriorating infrastructure by: 1) recapitalizing operational facilities, focusing on deferred maintenance and repair; 2) disposing of excess facilities that are not radiologically contaminated (or have minimum fixed quantified contamination) to reduce long-term costs/ risk and the total complex footprint; 3) continuing a disciplined planning, execution and evaluation effort to ensure effective outyear project execution of Recapitalization and Dispostion projects. "

Evidence: "Documentation of the problem includes: Nuclear Posture Review (NPR); FY 2000 Report to Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile (Foster Panel) (Feb 01); "

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The program is designed to improve the condition of facilities and infrastructure across the Nuclear Weapons complex by identifying, prioritizing, funding, and expeditiously correcting infrastructure problems. The program is intended to stop the deterioration of the NNSA's facilities and infrastructure, stabilize and then reduce deferred maintenance, and reduce the existing NNSA complex footprint by disposing of excess facilities that are no longer required for DOE/ NNSA's needs. If successful, the program will address deficiencies noted in numerous reports in recent years.

Evidence: "NNSA Strategic Plan; DOE FY 03 Annual Performance Plan; Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance (including FIRP criteria); Site Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans; Future Years Nuclear Security Program (March 02); FY 03 Congressional Budget Request; FY04 OMB Budget Request (draft); Report to Congress on the Organization and Operations of the NNSA (Feb 02); Foster Panel Report (Feb 01). "

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: The program focuses on renewing and sustaining NNSA facilities and infrastructure. These activities appear to overlap with activities under another NNSA program called Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities and, possibly, construction programs funded in the NNSA campaigns. Broadly speaking, all of these efforts play a role in restoring the complex to an acceptable condition. While the program is separate from the maintenance and infrastructure efforts funded out of the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities, the extent to which it is unique remains to be determined.

Evidence: "Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance (including FIRP project Criteria) NNSA Strategic Plan; Strategic Assessment Model, second edition (2001), Annual Budget request justification material. "

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization (FIRP) is structured as a capital renewal and sustainability program that addresses significant facilities and infrastructure issues that are separate from the ongoing operations and maintenance programmatic base. The program uses a team which includes representatives from DOE headquarters and field facility operators and managers to develop Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans that ensure a comprehensive look at NNSA facilities and infrastructure. The program is designed to address the worst/most urgent facilities and infrastructure problems first, consistent with the program criteria.

Evidence: "NNSA Strategic Plan; FIRP 5-Year Program Plan; Project Data Sheets; Project Work Authorizations; Annual Budget Requests; Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans guidance; Former Administrator John Gordon letter to Congress. "

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: "The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program's (FIRP) long-term goals are to reduce the backlog of deferred maintenance and reduce the amount of facilities and infrastructure no longer needed. Deferred maintenance is a standard industry metric that refers to the deferred amount of maintenance required to keep a facility in a condition for which it was originally intended. NNSA's goal is to return its deferred maintenance level to industry standards by FY 2009 for mission-critical facilities. Reducing excess infrastructure is both a DOE/NNSA and Congressional item of interest and NNSA intends to dispose of 3,000,000 square feet of space by 2009. Achieving the goals will benefit NNSA by lowering total maintenance costs. "

Evidence: Source Documents: Annual Budget Request; Deferred Maintenance Reduction Summit

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: The program's annual performance goals are still a work in progress, but initial indications support the assertion that they will lead to achieving the long-term goals. For example, near-term performance goals include stabilizing the amount of deferred maintenance and reducing excess space by 435,000 gross square feet in FY 2004.

Evidence: FY 03 DOE Annual Performance Plan; FY 03 Congressional Budget Request; Program Execution Plan; Monthly project reports; Project Data Sheets; Work Authorizations.

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: FIRP partners with representatives from NNSA's eight sites and operating contractors to support program planning and execution. Field representatives submit infrastructure site plans to the FIRP program office as part of the overall vetting process. These site plans form the base of the annual and long-term goals. Furthermore, the FIRP program office shares best practices and attains broad agreement and commitment from Headquarters, Field, and operating contractors to support the achievement of corporate goals. NNSA Headquarters and each Site (Federal and operating contractor) committed to the NNSA corporate goals of deferred maintenance reduction at Deferred Maintenance Reduction Summit in July 2002.

Evidence: "Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance; Site Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans; Five-Year Program Plans; Deferred Maintenance Reduction Summit (Jul 25, 02)"

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: The program works with NNSA Defense Programs and the operating contractors in the field to ensure that the most critical facilities and infrastructure needs of the complex are addressed. In addition, the program office has worked with other DoE organizations (including the Office of Engineering and Construction Management) to support Departmental reporting requirements. The program office also informally collaborates with counterparts in the Department of Defense.

Evidence: "Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance; Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Review Plan Deferred Maintenance Reduction Summit (Jul 25, 02); RTBF Implementation Plans; Integrated Construction Program Plan;"

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: Within the NNSA, the Office of Project Management and Engineering Support is responsible for conducting Independent Project Reviews that provide NNSA program managers with feedback on the status of project development and execution. The purpose of the independent project reviews is to ensure rigorous and systematic reviews of projects at key stages of the program and project life-cycle. The review process provides a standard methodology and report format for independent project reviews of NNSA programs and projects. The personnel that perform the independent project reviews have no direct role or interest in the execution or outcome of the Program and projects being reviewed.

Evidence: "Project Review Facilities and Infrastructure Program Capabilities at NNSA Nevada June 11-13, 02; Independent project review Project Management Capabilities at Y-12 National Security Complex, Oak Ridge, TN, Jan 22-25, 2002."

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: "The program budget structure is aligned with key objectives thereby enabling the impact of funding decisions to be assessed by sub-program (i.e., Recapitalization, Facility Disposition, Infrastructure Planning) and by individual project. There are Budget and Reporting codes associated with each of the sub-programs against which funding is allocated and costs reported. This budget structure has enabled the program to readily respond to Congressional direction, such as the following: ""The Committee directs that at least 25% of the facilities and infrastructure funding in FY 2003 be used to dispose of excess facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term cost and risk."" "

Evidence: "Future Years Nuclear Security Plan (Mar 02); NNSA Program Decision Memorandum for FY 2004-2008 (Jul 02); Foster Panel report; Office of Secretary of Defense Program Analysis and Evaluation Review (1999); FY 04 NNSA Program/Subprogram/Major technical Elements Table (shows FIRP budget and reporting structure)"

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The program has developed a system of evaluating the effectiveness of its strategic planning efforts and makes improvements, as needed. As part of the annual update of the Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans, NNSA Headquarters, the Field and operating contractors conduct a comprehensive review of the sites' draft Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans and identify lessons learned and areas requiring improvement. Both site-specific and complex-wide issues (such as Deferred Maintenance, a general weakness noted during review of the draft FY 03 Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans) are addressed. The most significant site-specific planning deficiencies are identified by formal memorandum to the site managers (for example a site's development of a draft Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan that was not resource-constrained); the more detailed and less significant comments are distributed via e-mail to the site facility and infrastructure contacts. The comments are resolved by the sites working with their operating contractors and Headquarters (as needed). The final Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans are reviewed by NNSA Headquarters to ensure that needed revisions have been appropriately incorporated.

Evidence: "FY 03 Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance; Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Lessons Learned; Review Process for NNSA FY 2003 Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans; Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Formal comments;"

Are acquisition program plans adjusted in response to performance data and changing conditions?

Explanation: Plans are adjusted twice a year in response to performance data and changing conditions. The program and NNSA headquarters conduct a comprehensive review of each sites' draft Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan to identify corrective actions that must be reflected in the final Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans to incorporate changing conditions or cost-effective alternatives. Project and related performance data reported in the site's draft and final Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans are adjusted in response to changes to the budget.

Evidence: "Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans; Review Process for NNSA FY 2003 Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans; Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Formal comments; Roofing Partnership."

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule and performance goals?

Explanation: "The program considers alternatives and trade-offs as part of pre-project planning and during the establishment of project cost, schedule and performance baselines. The program recently conducted an analyses of alternatives on a project proposed by a site which resulted in a new funding strategy, schedule, and scope. The site initially requested approval of a project at a total cost of $194M. Infrastructure and Facilities Management, in collaboration with the site, analyzed the scope, implementation schedule and costs and developed an alternative strategy that considered trade-offs between cost, schedule and performance goals. The new strategy reduced and realigned the scope to more manageable, smaller projects based upon priority and execution efficiencies; adjusted the funding profile, consistent with Future Years Nuclear Security Plan constraints; and ensured the program criteria for project selection were met. "

Evidence: "Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance (including Facility and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program and Disposition Rating Matrices); Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans;"

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program establishes baselines for its projects and collects monthly and bi-monthly status reports from the operating contractors at each site for all projects. These status reports provide an assessment of each project's cost, scope, and schedule status and other key project information related to milestones, baseline changes, financial data, and program manager assessments. Additional oversight of projects is conducted through periodic program reviews, formal baseline change control, and continuous dialogue with Field program managers, including specific feedback on corrective action plans for all projects that are reported to be out-of-tolerance.

Evidence: "DOE Status Reporting (reference FY 02, 3rd Quarter FIRP Results); Guidance on Improving the Facilities Information Management System (FIMS) to Support Facilities and Infrastructure Management (Aug 01); FY 2004 NNSA Facilities and Infrastructure Crosscut Field Budget Data; FY 2004 NNSA Surplus Facilities Management Data (draft); Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance; Monthly/bi-monthly project reports; "

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: "NNSA incorporates program performance into the evaluation standards of senior Federal managers responsible for achieving program results. Senior level managers' Performance Appraisal Plans are required to include ""Key Programmatic Accomplishments"" that are specific and measurable. As an example, the Program Manager's FY 02 Performance Appraisal Plan included an objective to, ""Develop/manage the program and budget"" with the the associated measure to, ""Manage the FIRP Program within approved scope, cost, and schedule"". NNSA's operating contracts are performance-based, consisent with DOE Acquisition Regulations to emphasize contractor performance and accountability. Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans are used to hold contractors accountable for achieving key results, including the objectives and expectations of the program. Failure to achieve stated objectives results in reductions to the fee the contractor earns (for fee-based contracts)."

Evidence: "DOE Senior program managers Performance Appraisals; Example of Contractor Performance Evaluation Plan; Monthly Project Reports."

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: "The program obligates funds in a timely manner, as evidenced by the following: (1) $8.7 million of supplemental funding received in August 2001 was obligated by September 2001; 2) The FIRP FY 02 total obligational authority available is $196.55M. As of July 2002, FIRP had obligated $183.5M (93%) and anticipated no difficulty obligating the remaining $13.1M by the end of the year. All program funds are spent for the intended purpose. As required by DOE/NNSA, the program utilizes the Approved Funding Plan and monthly performance-based Work Authorizations that provide the program guidance consistent with distribution of the Approved Funding Plan. The Approved Funding is the financial guidance controlling the distribution of DOE's obligational authority in compliance with all legal and administrative controls and also provides the funds necessary to support the monthly work authorizations. The sites submit monthly/bi-monthly project status reports that provide the Budget Outlay Profile and actual costs along with milestones, narratives and other data, providing accountability and further assurance that funds are being spent for the intended purpose. "

Evidence: "FIRP Work Authorizations; Approved Funding Program; Quarterly Allotment; Monthly status reports; FIRP Obligation Report (Financial Data Warehouse). "

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: "The program is implementing a program and project management process to ensure efficient use of funding. Sites establish project cost, schedule, and scope baselines and routinely measure and report their performance to Headquarters. Changes to the original baseline are monitored through a formal baseline change control process. To encourage efficient and effective project management and performance, project under runs remain at the sites to accomplish additional high-priority scope from the prioritized project list. In addition, cost efficiency is an important consideration for selection and validation of candidate projects. NNSA evaluates the cost efficiency of each project that appears on site lists for their immediate effect on the condition of a given facility and the savings of maintenance dollars. "

Evidence: Program Execution Plan

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: The program is In its infancy and, as yet, has not established a track record for estimating and budgeting for full program costs. Furthermore, the program's Federal Salary and Benefits, retirement, training, travel, rents, utilities, contractual and support services, and working capital fund costs are funded from a separate account and rolled up with other NNSA program direction funds consistent with Congressional direction.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: "NNSA adheres to financial management practices through the implementation of its Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Evaluation system. This goal of the system is to formalize resource management, link program guidance with fiscal guidance, apply uniform and consistent budget practices across NNSA, and incorporate financial analysis into programmatic decisions. Finally, NNSA is re-engineering its Headquarters and field structures to improve accountability at the lowest levels. Part of this re-engineering will involve the financial management processes of the field elements, and the interface of those field processes with DOE headquarters."

Evidence: Evidence: NNSA Future-Years Nuclear Security Program, March 20, 2002;

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Although the program is in its early stages, it has established formal program and project management processes and procedures (i.e., Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance, Program Execution Plan, various NNSA Planning and Budgeting requirements) that lay the groundwork to effectively manage the program. NNSA's eight sites appear to understand and concur with the processes established by the program office, and are part of continuous improvement efforts to correct deficiencies as they are identified. The program office collects lessons learned, benchmarks against other, similar, programs, and compares the program to the best practices of industry. Finally, facility management issues are routinely discussed and resolved during monthly Facilities and Infrastructure Team teleconferences.

Evidence: "Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Lessons Learned; Benchmarking with independent entities (including industry and other sites); Survey of NNSA F&I Best Management Practices (ongoing);"

Does the program define the required quality, capability, and performance objectives for deliverables?

Explanation: "NNSA operating contracts are performance-based. The quality, capability, and performance characteristics are specified in Performance Evaluation Plans consistent with Departmental guidance on performance based management. NNSA Headquarters programs formally concur on the Performance Evaluation Plans. The NNSA Headquarters Work Authorizations delineate the funding and provide a statement of work that includes a detailed description of the work to be performed including scope, deliverables, milestones, and performance measures/ expectations. The program work authorizations are performance-based and cascade down from the goals, objectives, strategies and indicators reported in the NNSA Strategic Plan, 5-Year Program Plans, work plans and other guidance specifically tasked and approved by the responsible headquarters program managers. "

Evidence: "Performance Evaluation Plan; Program Execution Plan; Work Authorizations; Project Authorizations; Monthly Project Reports "

Has the program established appropriate, credible, cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: "The program has established appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals and is able to estimate unit costs, annual costs, and life-cycle costs which are incorporated into the Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan. The planning goals are resource-constrained to reflect budget realities, consistent with the Future Years Nuclear Security Program. The FY 2003 Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans include the sites' proposed FIRP projects for FYs 2003-12. The program's cost, schedule, and performance goals are established through a project management approach where sites establish cost and schedule baselines that the program office reviews. After the initial baselines are established, changes are managed through a formal baseline change control process. The program is able to estimate unit costs for excess facilities disposition (i.e., dollars/square foot of excess facilities disposed) based on data collected in the sites' Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans and project status reports."

Evidence: "Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance; Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plans; Future Years Nuclear Security Plan; Program Execution Plan; Project Authorization; Project Data Sheets; Monthly/bi-monthly project reports; Status Reporting (reference FY 02, 3rd Quarter FIRP Results); "

Has the program conducted a recent, credible, cost-benefit analysis that shows a net benefit?

Explanation: Although initial reviews of the program appear to be favorable, the program is still too new to have developed sufficient data for a cost-benefit analysis.

Evidence:  

Does the program have a comprehensive strategy for risk management that appropriately shares risk between the government and contractor?

Explanation: "The program manages risk by prioritizing the most critical areas that require attention and sequencing the work to address those areas. During program planning, risk is directly factored into the site's prioritization of projects and into the Office of Infrastructure and Facilities Management selection of projects for funding. The sites prioritize their Recapitalization projects using the program's Recapitalization prioritization matrix which factors in Health and Safety risk to workers and the public; Mission Risk; Environmental Risk; and Safeguards and Security Risk. The sites prioritize their excess facilities disposition projects using the Disposition Matrix which factors in the facility condition assessment and cost into the prioritization rating. Congress has specifically directed that funding be used to, ""dispose of Excess Facilities that will provide the greatest impact on reducing long-term costs and risk."""

Evidence: "Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan Guidance; Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan; Performance Evaluation Plan . "

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: Although relatively new, the program appears to have a plan for achieving success. Notwithstanding previous DoE efforts at infrastructure maintenance and recapitalization, the program office appears to have the support of NNSA leadership, as demonstrated by a healthy funding profile in NNSA's Future Year Nuclear Security Plan. Given the numerous reports that have highlighted the poor state of the weapons complex infrastructure, significant attention will likely be given both internally and externally to this program.

Evidence: "FY 04 OMB Budget Request (draft) Deferred Maintenance Reduction Summit "

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: "The FY 2002 program annual goals, as reported in the DOE FY 2003 Annual Performance Plan are provided below, along with projected year-end results. These annual goals were established during the program's start-up year. The goals were recently updated to provide a more quantitative assessment of program progress and to align more closely with the program's long-term performance goals. The updated annual performance goals and targets for FY 2004 are shown under Key Goal 1 and Performance Target, and are included in the FY 2004 Budget. FY 02 Annual Goal: Execute oversight of more than 50 FY 2002 Recapitalization Projects consistent with scope, cost, and schedule baselines. Status: Currently executing 99% (80 of 81) FY 2002 Recapitalization projects within established baselines. FY 02 Annual Goal: Implement an excess prioritized project list to ensure high priority facilities are demolished, based on NNSA's TYCSPs that result in disposal of over 500,000 square feet of floor space. Status: On track to achieve footprint reduction of 500,000 gross square feet through execution of FY 2002 Program Facility Disposition projects. "

Evidence: "FY 04 OMB Budget Request (draft) FY 02 3rd Quarter Performance Results"

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: "The House Energy Water Development and Appropriations Bill for FY 2003 provided a favorable assessment of the program. Specifically: "The Committee is encouraged by the execution of this program to date and expects the NNSA to ensure that the results of this funding are quantifiable and quickly show measured improvements at each site . . .The Committee directs the NNSA to ensure that funds for recapitalization are not diverted to fund ongoing maintenance and programmatic needs."

Evidence: Congressional language

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation:  

Evidence: