Detailed Information on the
National Park Service - Facility Maintenance Assessment

Request $4.9 billion in maintenance and construction funds over five years.

Establish an efficiency measure for annual facility operating costs.

Improve regular park assets to acceptable condition, as measured by the Facility Condition Index, with the funding provided through FY 2009.

Complete an inventory with the data elements required by the Federal Real Property Council.

Complete baseline and targets for the Facility Condition Index, Facility Utilization Index, and Mission Dependency (i.e., API) performance measures required by the Federal Real Property Council.

Complete an Asset Management Plan.

Reduce unobligated balances in construction, repair and rehabilitation, and fee accounts.

Measure: Condition of all NPS regular assets as measured by a Facility Condition Index (score of 0.14 or lower is acceptable)

Explanation:Facility Condition Index (FCI) of 0.14 or lower means that this group of assets is in acceptable condition on average.

Measure: Condition of all NPS buildings as measured by a Facility Condition Index (score of 0.10 or lower is acceptable)

Explanation:Facility Condition Index (FCI) of 0.10 or lower means that this group of assets is in acceptable condition on average.

Measure: Condition of priority NPS buildings as measured by a Facility Condition Index (score of 0.05 or lower means portfolio is in good condition on average)

Explanation:Facility Condition Index (FCI) of 0.05 or lower means that this group of 200 assets is in good condition on average.

Measure: Facility operations and maintenance costs per square foot (buildings only). Maintenance costs per square foot.

Explanation:NPS inventory has 40,341 assets (as of 09/17/03) that need condition assessments.

Measure: Percent of assets with comprehensive condition assessments (96% of initial assessments are already done)

Explanation:NPS inventory has 40,341 assets (as of 09/17/03) that need condition assessments.

Measure: Percent of assets that are fully documented in the Facilty Maintenance Software System (FMSS)

Explanation:Fully documented assets (out of 40,341 as of 9/17/03) means: (1) all required data fields are populated; (2) all available specification templates are populated; and (3) representative work types are utilized for planning and reporting of work.

Measure: Facility operations and maintenance costs per square foot (buildings only). Maintenance costs per square foot.

Explanation:Includes both facility maintenance (activities that sustain the life of an asset) and facility operations.

Measure: Percent of assets with approved schedules for preventive maintenance and component renewal.

Explanation:NPS inventory has 40,341 assets (as of 09/17/03) that need approved schedules for preventive maintenance activities.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Purpose is to provide safe and sustainable facilities for park visitors and staff, as part of the dual NPS mission of serving visitors and protecting park resources.

Evidence: Since 1916, NPS has managed facilities to "provide for the enjoyment" of visitors in national parks and to protect resources "unimpaired for . . . future generations."

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

Explanation: Need is to manage and maintain the national park facilities that serve 300 million visitors annually.

Evidence: NPS has inventoried 40,000 assets and 12,000 miles of roads. It is now assessing the priority of these assets for the park mission.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: These programs maintain the facility infrastructure within national parks. Increasing or decreasing funding for these programs has a direct impact on the condition of that infrastructure. No other Federal or non-Federal funding sources are available for this purpose.

Evidence: All funding for park facilities comes from NPS maintenance ($379m in FY04), construction ($327m), recreation fees for maintenance ($75m), and FHWA's Federal Lands Highway Program ($300m).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: These capital asset programs are free from major design flaws. They are the only programs that address the Federal responsibility of federally owned facilities within national parks.

Evidence: NPS has clear responsibility for managing park assets. NPS and FWHA have an effective working relationship on park roads, which are solely a Federal responsibility. (Roads that serve other Federal lands are often a State responsibility.)

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The programs are generally designed well, with most construction work performed through contracts. NPS is working to become more efficient in conducting maintenance operations.

Evidence: NPS contracts out most construction, design, and road repair work. Only a small amount of NPS maintenance is done through contracts, but DOI and NPS are initiating competitive sourcing efforts.

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

Explanation: NPS can now measure its performance in maintaining regular assets by using a Facility Condition Index (FCI). It can also measure an asset's importance to the park mission by using an Asset Priority Index (API). By combining these two, NPS can target funding to improve the condition of priority assets.

Evidence: See initial FCI and API estimates. NPS now has baselines and targets in place, with annual condition assessments done for 96% of regular assets. It still needs to complete comprehensive assessments for over 80% of assets, but make more progress on concessions facilities.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Same as 2.1

Evidence: Same as 2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: NPS has a multi-year plan to complete condition assessments, implement a Facility Maintenance Software System (FMSS), and verify FCI and API measures. As NPS proceeds in completing these near-term output goals, it will shift toward meeting outcome goals based on FCI and related measures.

Evidence: See annual goals under the measures tab. Now that NPS has identified key milestones for establishing FCI and API performance measures for regular assets, it will need to establish similar milestones for concessions.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: Same as 2.3

Evidence: Same as 2.3

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: NPS leadership has placed great emphasis on getting park managers to assess facility conditions and prepare FCI performance measures. Park managers, in turn, work with contractors and other partners to ensure they support these goals. NPS generally does well in building consensus and support, but it will have to use more performance-based contracts for construction contractors, concessioners, and facility operators.

Evidence: See NPS Director and Deputy Director memos to parks on condition assessments. See also examples of communications with partners. NPS provided examples of construction contracts with performance specifications, but few of these incorporated performance-based incentives. It will also need to incorporate more performance-based incentives into concessions contracts. FHWA, the key partner for park roads, effectively uses a performance measure (Pavement Condition Rating, or PCR) to identify priorities for park road repairs.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: NPS uses a Development Advisory Board (DAB) for independent review of individual construction projects. (DAB reviewed 174 projects in 2002.) Larger projects are also reviewed through DOI's Capital Planning and Information Control (CPIC) process. Booz Allen Hamilton (BAH) and PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) have been contracted to verify and validate condition assessments for NPS-operated and concessions-operated facilities, respectively.

Evidence: See DOI's CPIC guidance and NPS's DAB guidelines. See BAH and PWC contracts. Although these project-by-project reviews are helpful, NPS would benefit from an independent review of the facility management program overall. One part of this program -- construction management -- was reviewed by the National Academy of Public Administration in 1998 and 2002. The 2002 review indicated that NPS has made significant progress in addressing concerns raised in the 1998 report.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: NPS has not yet shown how budget requests link to particular performance targets. Nor has it documented how different funding levels would achieve different results. NPS may be able to do so next year, however, if it can continue to make progress in establishing performance measures, implementing FMSS, and introducing Activity-Based Costing (ABC).

Evidence: NPS provided some evidence of life-cycle cost estimating for individual assets, but it has not yet shown that it can estimate changes in outputs (i.e., facility conditions) based on changes in inputs (i.e., funding). This will require not just estimating future costs, but tracking actual expenditures in maintaining and constructing assets.

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

Explanation: NPS has made across-the-board improvements in facility management, including better construction project management, service-wide condition assessments, implementation of a new maintenance management system, and establishment of FCI performance measures.

Evidence: See information on condition assessments, FMSS, FCI, API, DAB and CPIC reviews, and construction management reforms. See also draft Director's Order #80 on asset management program and 1998 NAPA report.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: NPS regularly conducts value analysis and value engineering to identify potential cost savings. It also uses capital asset plans for major projects, although it is struggling to use earned value management properly. NPS has created a new facility planning model to prepare size and space standards for major facilities, as recommended by the 1998 NAPA report.

Evidence: See DOI's CPIC guidance and NPS's DAB guidelines. See BAH and PWC contracts. See value analysis and value-engineering reports. See Capital Asset Plans presented to DAB and CPIC. See presentations on Facility Planning Model.

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: NPS is close. It has built a foundation to collect high-quality performance data, but it cannot yet document how it regularly uses such data to adjust program priorities, allocate resources, or take other management actions. NPS has also made progress on capital asset plans, but it needs to show more clearly that the plans properly track earned value. NPS could reach a Yes answer next year if progress continues.

Evidence: NPS is close to obtaining credible and timely performance data from FMSS, but has not yet documented that the system can generate the information needed to manage the program. NPS will also need to describe how it uses performance measures, with examples of recent management actions based on performance data. One example could be incorporating FCI measures into the NPS process for identifying construction project priorities.

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

Explanation: NPS has begun to hold individual park managers accountable for facility conditions, but more work is needed. NPS leadership has allocated certain maintenance funds to parks on the basis of their progress in completion of condition assessments. Park superintendents' performance evaluations are based on program performance, although these could be tied more closely to specific FCI targets. DAB reviews hold superintendents accountable for specific construction projects. Construction contractors have to meet minimum performance thresholds, although NPS needs to make greater use of performance incentives.

Evidence: See 3/4/03 memo from NPS Deputy Director on allocating FY03 maintenance funds. See background information on DAB reviews. See examples of superintendent performance reviews and concession contracts with performance thresholds.

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

Explanation: NPS has made progress in increasing its annual obligations for construction, but it continues to carry over large unobligated balances. NPS also has large unobligated balances in recreation fee receipts, although this has stabilized as the program has matured. NPS should prepare year-end spending reports that compare planned and actual expenditures by construction project or program element. NPS also needs better ways to report on recreation fee expenditures.

Evidence: Unobligated balances for NPS construction have grown from $277m at the end of FY00 to $378m after FY01 and $395m after FY02. This is despite NPS efforts to increase obligations from $297m in FY01 to $370m in FY02. Higher obligations in FY03 should start to bring down the carryover balances. NPS still carries over too much in recreation fee receipts; it carried over nearly $300m from FY02, which is double the amount of annual collections.

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

Explanation: NPS has focused on completing condition assessments and establishing output measures using FCI, but now it must look for ways to measure efficiency improvements. Ongoing competitive sourcing efforts should help NPS identify the most efficient operation, whether in-house or by contractor. DOI should help NPS by reinvigorating its Facility Metrics Working Group.

Evidence: NPS has begun to identify efficiency measures, but it has not yet begun to track them. For maintenance, this may depend upon full implementation of FMSS. For construction, it will require better tracking of actual costs against estimated costs. Competitive sourcing should start to show results by next year.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NPS collaborates closely with DOT's Federal Highway Administration in the management of park roads. The two agencies jointly develop performance goals, planning documents, and resource allocation decisions.

Evidence: See NPS budget justifications, planning documents, and maintenance guidelines. Although NPS works well with FHWA, it could work more closely with other DOI bureaus. DOI could help by reinvigorating its Planning, Design, Construction and Maintenance Council.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: NPS traditionally has weak financial management practices. It is one of the key players in two DOI-wide material weaknesses: inadequate department-wide maintenance management capability, and inadequate controls over property, plant, and equipment.

Evidence: See DOI's FY02 Annual Report on Performance and Accountability.

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

Explanation: NPS has made across-the-board improvements in facility management, including better construction project management, service-wide condition assessments, implementation of a new maintenance management system, and establishment of FCI performance measures.

Evidence: See information on condition assessments, FMSS, FCI, API, DAB and CPIC reviews, and construction management reforms. See also draft Director's Order #80 on asset management program and 1998 NAPA report.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: NPS has used its DAB process as an Investment Review Board under CPIC. This has forced project sponsors to specify up-front their objectives and milestones, and has given NPS leadership a way to monitor performance in meeting those goals. DOI oversees this with its own CPIC process. NPS uses value analysis and value engineering to avoid costs and improve performance.

Evidence: See information on DAB reviews. Out of 174 projects reviewed in 2002, 10 were rejected, 37 required responses or changes, and 26 were approved with conditions. NPS reports that its value analysis helped avoid $24m in costs in FY02, while in other cases it kept projects within planned budgets.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: NPS will soon be able to demonstrate progress in achieving long-term goals, but first it must establish baseline conditions and targets. NPS gets some credit, however, for working with FHWA to make progress in meeting long-term goals for park roads.

Evidence: NPS has just established long-term performance goals for regular assets, so next year it should be able to demonstrate progress in achieving those goals. NPS gets some credit for meeting goals for park roads, based on FHWA's Pavement Condition Rating.

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

Explanation: NPS met its annual goals for completing condition assessments, implementing FMSS, and establishing FCI and API measures. All but four parks have completed their condition assessments by the end of FY03, and all but one will be done by the end of FY04.

Evidence: See measures tab for annual targets and results. NPS still needs to document progress for concessions and other "non-regular" assets, such as archeological ruins.

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

Explanation: NPS is just now turning to efficiency measures, so it cannot yet demonstrate improved efficiency. NPS is conducting a couple of A-76 competitions in maintenance functions, which should produce results next year.

Evidence: No evidence provided to show improved efficiency. DOI should help NPS by reinvigorating its Facility Metrics Working Group to identify suitable benchmarks in other agencies and in the private sector.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: NPS has gone from a laggard to a leader in facility management. In the mid 1990s, it was regularly criticized for cost overruns and no priority-setting process; now it has good cost controls and a five-year list of priorities. Only a few agencies have better FCI performance measures. NPS has been acknowledged as a leader in value analysis.

Evidence: The 2002 NAPA report concluded that the NPS construction program has addressed most of the concerns raised in the 1998 NAPA report. NPS generally recognized by colleagues as a leader in value analysis. Other bureaus are now turning to NPS for help in implementing a facility management system.

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

Explanation: The 2002 NAPA report indicated that the construction program has addressed most of the concerns raised in the 1998 NAPA report. In April 2002, GAO reported that NPS was making progress in developing a new asset management process, but its success could not yet be demonstrated. GAO testified in July 2003 that NPS continues to make progress. DOI has started a CPIC process to complement NPS's DAB process for approving and monitoring individual projects.

Evidence: See 2002 NAPA report. See 2002 GAO report. See July 2003 GAO testimony. See DOI's CPIC guidance and NPS's DAB guidelines.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: NPS has done well over the past year in meeting its annual goals for completing condition assessments, implementing FMSS, and establishing FCI measures. NPS has also submitted to Congress its five-year construction priority list. In contrast to the 1990s, when a number of NPS projects had cost overruns, most NPS projects have met cost, schedule and performance goals. The main slippage has been in cases (such as Yosemite, Everglades, and Olympic) where legal challenges or other external constraints have slowed the process.

Evidence: See information on condition assessments, FMSS, FCI, API, DAB and CPIC reviews, and construction management reforms. See also five-year construction priority list and 2002 NAPA report. NPS still needs some way to systematically demonstrate program accomplishments, such as through an annual report that compares targets and results for FCI measures, capital asset plans, unobligated balances, and efficiency measures.