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

Assessing the near-term and long-term facilities and infrastructure requirements resulting from the Transformation of the Complex.

Evaluating the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program to ensure that the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program supports these requirements and aligns with the Preferred Alternative assuming a Record of Decision is promulgated in FY2008.

Improving the efficiency of the project tracking process through establishment of a standardized data management and reporting system.

Measure: Annual dollar value; and cumulative percentage of FY 2003 deferred maintenance baseline of $900 million; funded for elimination by FY 2013.

Explanation:The NNSA commitments are to stabilize deferred maintenance (DM) by the end of FY 2005 and achieve industry standards for DM by the end of FY 2009 for mission-critical and mission-dependent facilities and infrastructure. The industry standard is for deferred maintenance to be less than 5% of total replacement plant value, which in 2003 was $1,200,000,000. Notes: (1) The program's deferred maintenance goal has been adjusted downward to elimination of $900,000,000 of deferred maintenance by FY 2013 as a result of aligning the deferred maintenance buydown with the reduced facility envisioned for the future. The cumulative change is reflected in FY 2007, the same year that the analysis was completed. (2) The FY 2007 cumulative percentage includes $31,786,476 of FY 2003 baseline DM funded in the FY 2004 Disposition subprogram. (3) The original 2009 date for elimination of the deferred maintenance backlog was extended to 2013 due to constrained outyear funding. The FY 2006 Defense Authorization Bill extends the FIRP end date by two years (from 2011 to 2013) to enable FIRP to accomplish its mission. (4) The FY 2008 cumulative percentage includes $1,879,524 of FY 2003 legacy DM funded in the FY 2004 Disposition subprogram; $23,000,000 of FY 2003 legacy deferred maintenance funded in the FY 2003 Recapitalization subprogram and submitted as a result of a baseline validation exercise; and $42,000,000 of FY 2004 legacy DM funded between FY 2004-2008.

Measure: Annual gross square feet (gsf) of NNSA excess facilities space funded for elimination; and cumulative percentage of FY 2002-FY 2009 total goal of three million gsf eliminated.

Explanation:This measure tracks Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program progress towards reducing the National Nuclear Security Administration footprint by three million gross square feet (gsf) of excess facilities space by FY 2009 in support of overall NNSA footprint reduction efforts. Note: (1) The program achieved the FY 2009 performance goal of demolishing 3,000,000 gsf of facilities in FY 2008, one year early. (2) The cumulative percentage includes gsf reductions achieved before the start of the program. In particular, a reduction of both 228,542 gsf of excess facilities funded in FY 2002, but completed in 2003 and 218,445 gsf of excess facilities funded in FY 2003 and completed in FY 2004-2005. (3) No funding is requested for program activities for 2009 and beyond.

Measure: Annual National Nuclear Security Administration complex-wide aggregate Facility Condition Index, as measured by deferred maintenance costs per replacement plant value, for all mission-critical facilities and infrastructure.

Explanation:The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is a tool adopted by Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration for measuring the condition of facilities. The FCI is the ratio of the cost of deferred maintenance to the facility's replacement plant value. The cost of deferred maintenance is determined by condition assessment inspections. Note: (1) The FCI Targets based on the latest NNSA Ten Year Site Plans indicate that the FY 2009 endpoint target will not be achieved. (2) NNSA has redefined this performance indicator for the FY 2009-FY 2013 President's Budget to be consistent with the Federal Real Property Council and DOE mission-dependency categories and goals.

Measure: Annual National Nuclear Security Administration complex-wide aggregate Facility Condition Index, as measured by deferred maintenance per replacement plant value, for all mission-dependent, not critical facilities and infrastructure.

Explanation:The Facility Condition Index (FCI) is a tool adopted by Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) for measuring the condition of facilities. The FCI is the ratio of the cost of deferred maintenance to the facility's replacement plant value. The cost of deferred maintenance is determined by condition assessment inspections. Note: (1) The FCI Targets based on the latest NNSA Ten Year Site Plans indicate that the FY 2009 endpoint target will not be achieved. (2) NNSA has redefined this performance indicator for the FY 2009-FY 2013 President's Budget to be consistent with the Federal Real Property Council and DOE mission-dependency categories and goals. (3) An analysis of the FY2008 end-of-year data in the DOE corporate facility management database was conducted in order to accurately project the FY2009-FY2014 goals. The current FY2008-2013 MDNC FCI goals were established during FY2007 with the best available information in the database at the time. The results of the comparison between 2007 and 2008 data indicate that the 2007 data did not account for all the deferred maintenance present in the complex at the time.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) was created by Congress in 2003 to reduce the backlog of maintenance affecting about 10 percent of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) nuclear weapons complex physical infrastructure. FIRP restores, rebuilds, and revitalizes NNSA physical infrastructure to reduce this maintenance backlog by FY 2013 to no more than 5 percent of critical and 7 percent of non-critical NNSA infrastructure. A concern is that the FIRP has been narrowly defined to address only deferred maintenance backlog identified in 2003. But the total deferred maintenance backlog is projected to begin growing significantly again through 2013 and beyond. According to the NNSA strategic plan, infrastructure maintenance is the responsibility of two programs, the FIRP and the Readiness and Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) program. Because they are projected to fail to meet this growth, this is a larger problem for the NNSA and the Department of Energy.

Evidence: The Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act issued in December 2007 authorized the program to spend a government appropriation for the purpose stated in the explanation for this question. FY2009 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration submitted in February 2008 to Congress for authorization and appropriation states the purpose of the program. (pp.339-384) The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Strategic Plan November 2004 (p.10) establishes NNSA's intent to conduct "an effective and integrated program to restore, revitalize, and rebuild, the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure." The FIRP's purpose flows directly from the strategic plan and is subsequently incorporated in the budget request documents which are ultimately approved by Congress.

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

Explanation: The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) continues to have an unacceptably-high deferred maintenance backlog and large inventory of excess NNSA facilities. The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) restores, rebuilds, and revitalizes NNSA physical infrastructure to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog. Its current goal is to meet, by FY 2013, of no more than 5 percent of critical and 7 percent of non-critical NNSA infrastructure in need of maintenance.

Evidence: The Government Accountability Office and the Department of Energy Office of Inspector General have both identified revitalizing the infrastructure as the Department's Major Management Challenge area and noted that the deteriorating infrastructure threatens mission accomplishment and will require substantial funding to ameliorate. The Nuclear Posture Review discussed the need to revitalize the nuclear weapons complex as the third leg of the "New Triad". The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Strategic Plan November 2004 (p.10) states that "many of the facilities [in NNSA] are 40 years or older, and significant portions of the aging infrastructure are in need of renewal."

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

Explanation: No structural overlap exists between FIRP and RTBF. In general, life cycle asset management is the industry standard for corporate facility management and is comprised of four major components - (1) daily operations and maintenance; (2) capital renewal to provide extended life to the facility inventory; (3) capital acquisition; and (4) footprint reduction (elimination of facilities no longer needed). RTBF is responsible for (1) and FIRP is responsible for (2-FIRP Recap), (3-FIRP Line Items), and (4-FIRP Disposition). When compared to the Department of Defense (DoD), without regard to the vast difference in size and the complexities introduced by the armed services, the two Departments are performing the same functions. DoD aligns with the four areas in this way: (1) Sustainability - BOS, (2) Restoration & Modernization - BOS, (3) Recapitalization - MILCON & BOS, and (4) Efficient Facilities Initiative. Thus while each Department has organized the four functions somewhat differently, they fulfill essentially unique functions in the corporate management of facilities. The functions are separate, but inter-related, as is all business management. The FIRP exists principally because facilities were without advocacy prior to calendar year 2000, and were failing. Formerly, the RTBF competed with research, development, and production needs in a no-live testing environment, and was significantly under funded for a decade. To address the problem squarely, the NNSA, after reviewing industry models, the corporate facilities management of federal agencies, and in consultation with the National Academy of Sciences' Federal Facility Council, created a dedicated program to "recapitalize" the weapons complex. The FIRP program is established apart from the weapons program offices, which manages the RTBF program. Congress, long critical of the facility condition of the complex, supports the separation of the FIRP from the RTBF and mandated its creation.

Evidence: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; and the subsequent Energy Reorganization Act of 1976 covers the laws for the development and the regulation of the uses of nuclear materials and facilities in the United States. The FY 1994 National Defense Authorization Act directed the Secretary of Energy to "establish a stewardship program to ensure the preservation of the core intellectual and technical competencies of the United States in nuclear weapons" FY 1994 National Defense Authorization Act (Public Law 130-160); The FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act directed the establishment of the National Nuclear Security Administration to administer the nuclear weapons stockpile. -FY 2000 National Defense Authorization Act, Title 32 (Public Law 106-65); The September 2006 PARTWeb Update completed an improvement plan identified in the 2002 OMB PART that required FIRP to review the infrastructure programs in NNSA to ensure that there is no overlap between FIRP and other infrastructure programs within NNSA. This improvement plan noted that both programs were necessary to the success of the goals outlined in the Nuclear Posture Review. Please see www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10000088.2002.html for the full write-up. The 2004 NNSA Strategic Plan defines the separate and distinct roles of Readiness in Technical Base and FIRP: 2004 NNSA Strategic Plan (p.10, 13). The NNSA Strategic Plan states that attainment of the corporate facilities and infrastructure goals for deferred maintenance buydown and facility condition "involves a joint effort, separate but complementary, between the RTBF and FIRP programs." The FY2009 goals that require the complementary effort between RTBF and FIRP are listed in the NNSA 2004 Strategic Plan as: (1) Aggressively reduce deferred maintenance to industry standards; (2) Return facility conditions, for mission essential facilities and infrastructure, to an assessment level of good to excellent; and (3) Have institutionalized responsible and accountable facility management processes, including budgetary ones, so that the condition of NNSA facilities and infrastructure is equal to or better than industry standards. Goal #2 from the NNSA Strategic Plan, "facility conditions", is measured by the facility condition index (FCI), which is deferred maintenance divided by replacement plant value. FIRP buys down legacy deferred maintenance and RTBF is responsible for funding maintenance on an ongoing basis, to avoid further growth of deferred maintenance. The joint efficiency measures of mission critical FCI and mission dependant FCI reflect the results of the complementary efforts of RTBF and FIRP to stabilize new deferred maintenance growth and buydown legacy deferred maintenance, respectively.

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP program design is free of major flaws that would limit its effectiveness or efficiency. The FIRP uses the existing contractor management and operating structure of the National Nuclear Security Administration to execute the program and has evaluated different management approaches for the execution of the 500+ deferred maintenance projects managed across the nuclear weapons complex to date. One example of a cost-effective program management solution is the establishment of a complex-wide roofing integration and execution contract that has proven an efficient approach for addressing roofing deficiencies across the complex. The program is designed so that it is advantageous to the Sites to effectively manage projects. When program flaws are identified, fixes are rapidly determined, deployed and socialized in the field.

Evidence: The FY 2008 FIRP Execution Plan establishes the organizational and reporting structure for the program. The organizational structure identifies the management and operating contractor as the suggested program manager for execution of the Site Office requirements on the Sites. The FY 2007 and 2008 FIRP Annual Site Program Reviews evaluate the program on an annual basis to identify areas of improvement as well as superior performance. The action items identified in these reviews are then followed to closure. FIRP Independent Project Reviews: January 2002-May 2005 Summary Report (including Lessons Learned) were conducted by NNSA's internal project management review group. Roof Asset Management Program Partnership is an example of implementation of a corporate solution for a complex-wide roofing problem.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is designed in a manner that effectively targets program resources towards addressing the purpose, goals, and intended beneficiaries of the program. FIRP is designed to reduce deferred maintenance by executing discrete construction projects less than $5 million that restore, rebuild and revitalize the physical infrastructure of the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) complex. Prior to project approval, each recapitalization project proposed by the Sites for execution is individually reviewed and assessed by the program office to ensure that the scope, cost, and schedule directly targets the program's goals to buy down deferred maintenance and improve the facility condition index. The program established FIRP Criteria for Project Selection, included in the Program Execution Plan defines and targets the specific types of facilities and infrastructure projects to be considered for program funding. The Program Criteria, along with the Recapitalization Rating Matrix score and prioritized project lists, ensure that the program effectively targets and funds projects at NNSA sites that address the program purpose and goal. The intended beneficiary of the program is principally the Stockpile Stewardship Program; however, the projects also benefit the balance of defense programs. The program can demonstrate that the right beneficiaries are being targeted through the (FIRP) Annual Program Reviews and Independent Program Reviews.

Evidence: The Annual (most currently FY 2009-2018) Ten-Year Site Plan (TYSP) Guidance is the initial planning document that the program uses to target use of future year funding. Specifically, Attachments A-4 and A-4a provide specific guidance for identifying and prioritizing proposed the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) projects. Sites submit these projects as a list within an annual target identified in the TYSP Guidance. Following the submission of the Ten-Year Site Plans, the FIRP has a series of execution processes that dictate the next steps for targeting program funding. The FIRP Criteria for Project Selection are included in the Program Execution Plan and define and target the specific types of facilities and infrastructure projects that will be considered for program funding. The FIRP Criteria, along with the Recapitalization Rating Matrix score and prioritized project lists ensure that the program effectively targets and funds projects at National Nuclear Security Administration sites that address the program purpose and goal. FIRP Annual Reviews serve as an independent assessment of the program effectiveness as stated in Q1.4. The Baseline, Analysis, Reporting, and Tracking Tool (BARTT) is an online project management system that the Site Offices update on a quarterly basis. The system produces Individual Project Status Reports that show the progress of all projects against their stated goals.

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: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) uses three long-term performance measures to track its progress to achieve its goal of having no more than 5 percent of critical and 7 percent of non-critical National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) infrastructure in need of maintenance by FY 2013: (1) total legacy deferred maintenance funded for elimination; (2) the facilities condition index (FCI) for mission critical facilities, which is an outcome efficiency measure; and (3) the FCI for non mission critical, mission dependent facilities, which is also an outcome efficiency measure.

Evidence: The program goals are long-term relative to the length of the FIRP. The measures were established in FY2003 for achievement within a 6-year timeframe; however, the original FY2009 date for elimination of the deferred maintenance (DM) backlog was extended to 2013 due to constrained outyear funding. The FY2007 Defense Authorization Bill extended the FIRP end date two years, from FY2011 to FY2013 in order to line up with the performance goals. The current long-term goals are to: (1) Eliminate $900 million of DM by FY2013; (2) Maintain the condition of mission critical facilities and infrastructure at an FCI level of 5% by FY2013; and (3) Improve mission dependent, not critical facilities and infrastructure to an FCI level of 7% by FY2013. The Department of Energy/NNSA JOULE Report documents the Program Government Performance and Results Act unit and the progress against these four performance measures. Additionally, the FY2009 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration states the long-term performance measures. The FY2004 Authorization Act required that FIRP list every Recapitalization and Disposition project that would be executed within the FIRP scope. Therefore, FIRP is a focused program and the scope cannot grow beyond the scope of what the current performance measures track.

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program has established ambitious, quantifiable targets and timeframes for its long-term output measures of Legacy Deferred Maintenance Reduction and Footprint Reduction and long-term efficiency measures of Mission-Critical (MC) facility condition index (FCI) and mission-dependant, not critical (MDNC) FCI (ref. question 2.1 and the FY2009 Congressional Budget Request). Given the magnitude of the deferred maintenance problem, the Program's long-term targets are challenging. The National Nuclear Security Administration target for legacy deferred maintenance reduction for FY2004 through FY2013 is $900 million and is measured against a baseline of $2.4 billion of deferred maintenance backlog. The FIRP Facilities Disposition baseline is based on the data (gross square feet (gsf), building number, and year excess) reported in the sites' Ten Year Site Plans (TYSPs). Based on initial data, the total excess facility space available for demolition through FY 2009 was approximately 3 million gsf and this is the baseline for the long-term goal. The MC FCI is the DM associated with the mission-critical facilities divided by the replacement plant value of the mission-critical facilities. The MDNC FCI is the same equation, but for mission-dependant, not critical facilities. The baseline for FCI is determined based on the Sites' TYSP submissions. FIRP will retain the DM long-term output goal for FY2013, but will cease funding facilities disposition after FY2008 because the program achieved the long-term footprint reduction goal one year early, in FY2008. FIRP cannot add additional long-term output measures because it is outside of the finite scope of the FIRP program. FIRP is required to fund legacy baseline DM reduction per Congressional budget legislation. The "legacy baseline" is a list of projects identified in FY2003-4 and FIRP was mandated in FY2004 to only fund projects from that list. The list includes MC and MDNC projects which are selected based on a priority and scoring matrix that includes considerations of site needs, mission dependency, security, safety, and impact to operations. The MC and MDNC FCI measures do not solely reflect FIRP's contribution to DM reduction, it reflects RTBF expenditures as well. To this end, the MC and MDNC are shared metrics designated as "Efficiency Measures". It is important to understand that NNSA redefined the Facility Condition Index (FCI) performance indicator in the FY2009-FY2013 Congressional Budget Request (as submitted by OMB to Congress) to be consistent with the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) and DOE mission-dependency categories and goals. The NNSA transitioned from the "mission-essential (ME)" designation for facilities to the Federal Real Property Council's (FRPC) revised mission dependency categories: mission-critical (MC) and mission dependant, not critical (MDNC) in 2007. The new MC and MDNC categories and the associated facilities lists are not a direct correlation to the previous ME facilities list, but have considerable overlap. The ME facilities list was approximately 1,600 buildings, whereas the validated MC facilities list is a subset of approximately 200 buildings and the MDNC facilities list is approximately 1800 buildings, most of which are from the old ME list. The last year of reporting FCI for ME facilities was FY 2007. The FY2007 results for ME FCI can be found under the (newly named) MC FCI results in the FY2009 Congressional Budget Request document (Annual Performance Results and Target section). The FY2008 results will be reported under the new MC and MDNC FCI categories. The Ten Year Site Plans document the baseline for the FCI measures. This change was also approved by OMB in its current form during the RTBF FY2007 OMB PART Assessment and subsequently in the FIRP FY2007 PART Fall Update.

Evidence: Ten Year Site Plan (TYSP) Guidance (Attachments A, E and F) ensures that the data gathered in the TYSP will support performance measure documentation and future projections. FY2008 TYSPs document achievement of performance measures annually and project the achievement into the future. Recovery of the National Nuclear Security Administration Complex Memo communicated the expectations for facilities goals. FY2009 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) states the FIRP goals and timeframes. Department of Energy/NNSA JOULE Report documents the quarterly progress in achieving the goals. The industrial standard of five percent for overall infrastructure may be found in: DOE Facilities Information Management System (FIMS) User's Guide shows Asset Condition Index ranges. DOE FIMS Reporting Guide shows "Acceptable Operating Condition FCI <= 5%." S. Hirai, D. Krause, and G. Munson, "Industry Use of the Facility Condition Index," 2004 Department of the Interior Facilities and Asset Management Conference, May, 2004 and included references.

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has specific annual measures that demonstrate progress towards achieving the program's long-term goals: (1) total legacy deferred maintenance funded for elimination; (2) the facilities condition index (FCI) for mission critical facilities, which is an outcome efficiency measure; and (3) the FCI for non mission critical, mission dependent facilities, also an outcome efficiency measure; and (4) Reduce the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) footprint by 3 million gross square feet by FY 2009. The first three annual measures have long-term goals, so they are also considered to be long-term performance measures. The fourth annual measure ceases to be a FIRP program goal in 2008, which is when the mission transfers to NNSA's Transformation Disposition (TD) program. Footprint reduction in the TD program commences in 2009. Each performance measure focuses on the outcome of revitalizing the physical infrastructure of the nuclear weapons complex through recapitalization projects and disposition of excess facilities. The FY 2009 annual targets are consistent with information reported in the FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request.

Evidence: The FY2008 FIRP Implementation Plan finalizes the annual goals that will support the long-term goals of the program. These goals are directly supported by the FY2008 appropriation. The Implementation Plans are finalized after the final appropriation.

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has established baselines and ambitious targets for its four annual measures. FIRP has two Long-Term/Annual Measures (DM and GSF) and two Efficiency Measures with long-term goals (MC FCI and MDNC FCI). In accordance with the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Ten-Year Site Plan (TYSP) Guidance, sites report comprehensive baselines for legacy deferred maintenance (DM), footprint reduction (gross square feet-GSF), and facilities condition index (FCI) on an annual basis. Sites also report by project for the upcoming execution year, the amount of deferred maintenance that the Recapitalization or Disposition project will reduce. The Program Manager then evaluates the individual site proposed baselines and targets, and consistent with overall approved program funding targets and long term program goals, establishes annual corporate targets for each of the annual performance measures. Specifically, NNSA's TYSP guidance required sites to report on their deferred maintenance (DM), excess facilities disposition, and facilities condition index as follows: (1) Deferred Maintenance Baseline (FY 2003) and projected deferred maintenance reduction, including annual targets for deferred maintenance reduction; (2) Excess Facilities Disposition Plan including annual targets (gross square feet) of excess facilities to be demolished.; (3) MC Facilities Condition Index (FCI) annual targets are joint efficiency measures shared with the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) Program. (4) MDNC Facilities Condition Index (FCI) annual targets are joint efficiency measures shared with the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) Program. It is important to understand that NNSA redefined the Facility Condition Index (FCI) performance indicator in the FY2009-FY2013 Congressional Budget Request (as submitted by OMB to Congress) to be consistent with the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) and DOE mission-dependency categories and goals. The NNSA transitioned from the "mission-essential (ME)" designation for facilities to the Federal Real Property Council's (FRPC) revised mission dependency categories: mission-critical (MC) and mission dependant, not critical (MDNC) in 2007. The new MC and MDNC categories and the associated facilities lists are not a direct correlation to the previous ME facilities list, but have considerable overlap. The ME facilities list was approximately 1,600 buildings, whereas the validated MC facilities list is a subset of approximately 200 buildings and the MDNC facilities list is approximately 1800 buildings, most of which are from the old ME list. The last year of reporting FCI for ME facilities was FY 2007. The FY2007 results for ME FCI can be found under the (newly named) MC FCI results in the FY2009 Congressional Budget Request document (Annual Performance Results and Target section). The FY2008 results will be reported under the new MC and MDNC FCI categories. The Ten Year Site Plans document the baseline for the FCI measures. This change was also approved by OMB in its current form during the RTBF FY2007 OMB PART Assessment and subsequently in the FIRP FY2007 PART Fall Update.

Evidence: The Annual Ten Year Site Plan (TYSP) Submissions (Attachments A and F) show the data for projects and deferred maintenance. The TYSP submissions are followed by review guidance that dictates the standards for reviewing the TYSPs and then approval memos are subsequently issued that approve or disapprove the TYSPs with major and minor comments. The FY2009 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) shows the joint efficiency measure that the FIRP shares with Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities program. The initial baseline for the FIRP was established in the FY2003 timeframe by funding condition assessments at the NNSA Sites which facilitated an accurate and consistent baseline for the program. The industrial standard of five percent for overall infrastructure may be found in: DOE Facilities Information Management System (FIMS) User's Guide shows Asset Condition Index ranges. DOE FIMS Reporting Guide shows "Acceptable Operating Condition FCI <= 5%." S. Hirai, D. Krause, and G. Munson, "Industry Use of the Facility Condition Index," 2004 Department of the Interior Facilities and Asset Management Conference, May, 2004 and included references.

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

Explanation: All Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) partners commit to and work toward the annual and long-term goals of the program. The Program Manager strives to ensure that the program's partners support the overall goals of the program and measure and report on their performance as it relates to accomplishing those goals. The program has established a close partnership with its counterparts in the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Headquarters programs, NNSA's eight sites and Management and Operating contractors to support program planning/execution and foster program success. The NNSA Administrator has emphasized his personal commitment to the program's goals and has formally requested the personal involvement of Site Office Managers. The contractors' Performance Evaluation Plans include specific contractor deliverables to support the corporate deferred maintenance and footprint reduction goals. The contractors' annual Performance Evaluation Plans include specific contractor deliverables to support the corporate deferred maintenance and footprint reduction goals, and the contractors are held accountable through the award fee structure. At the Headquarters (HQ) program level, the FIRP and Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities share a corporate performance indicator, Facility Condition Index, which supports the overall goals of both programs.

Evidence: The Management & Operating (M&O) Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans (PEP) and evaluations incorporate the FIRP annual and long-term goals into the Management and Operating Contractor award fee structure. The PEP Guidance communicates these expectations to the Site Offices for incorporation into the contractor performance plans. Additionally, the program team incorporates performance measures into the annual personnel reviews. Each Site Office produces a Site Level Program Execution Plan for review and approval by the HQ Program Office.

Are independent 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: The National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) Office of Project Management and Systems Support conducts Independent Project Reviews (IPR) that provide NNSA program managers with feedback on the status of project development and execution. The purpose of the IPR is to ensure rigorous and systematic reviews of program and projects at key stages of the program and project life-cycle. The review process provides a standard methodology and report format. The personnel that perform the IPRs have no direct role or interest in the execution or outcome of the program and projects being reviewed. The sites were reviewed in FY2005 and a report was issued to all sites summarizing the results and findings of those independent reviews and includes best business practices and lessons learned.

Evidence: Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program Independent Project Reviews were conducted in January 2002-May 2005 Summary Report (including Lessons Learned); NA-52 conducts annual internal program assessments at each of National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) 8 sites that receive program funding; The Director of Infrastructure and Facilities Management reviews the program quarterly. The Administrator reviews the program annually as part of the official "Administrator's Program Review". In August 2005, the Office of Inspector General issued Letter (OIG) Report OAS-L-05-09, "Audit of the NNSA's Deferred Maintenance", which closed out a 3-year audit of various aspects of the FIRP. The OIG found no reportable findings and noted that NNSA was making progress in reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. Independent Line Item Reviews conducted as part of compliance with the Department of Energy Order 413.3 Guidance include: Nevada Test Site, Mercury Highway - Critical Decision (CD)-1 Internal Project Review, June 6-8, 2007 Y-12 Site, Steam Plant Life Extension - Post CD-2/3 Smoke Stack Value Engineering Review, February 28, 2008 Y-12 Site, Potable Water System Upgrade - CD-3 Internal Project Review, May 22-24, 2007 Sandia National Laboratories, Heating System Modernization - CD-3 Independent Cost Estimate, October 15-18, 2007 Pantex Plant, Gas Main & Distribution System Upgrade - CD-1 Independent Cost Estimate, February 25, 2005 Pantex Plant, Electrical Distribution System Upgrade - CD-2 External Independent Review, June,2005

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: National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA) Budget Requests display directly on a year-by-year basis the reduction of the 2003 deferred maintenance backlog to the 5 and 7 percent levels for critical and non-critical infrastructures' backlogged maintenance. In addition, the cumulative legacy deferred maintenance funded for elimination is portrayed in the budget Performance Results and Targets tables.

Evidence: FY2006 U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Strategic Plan sets the overall strategic goals for the department including those related to facilities and infrastructure. The NNSA Strategic Plan (November 2004) flows from the DOE Strategic Plan and sets the long-term goals for NNSA. NNSA Program Decision Memorandum is used to document the final NA-1 program decisions for the Congressional Budget Request. FY2009 Administrator's Final Recommendation: Annually, the NNSA performance-planning-budgeting decisions are documented in the Administrator's Final Recommendation and used to develop the budget requests during the Budgeting Phase. Approved Funding Plans and Work Authorizations authorize the NNSA contractors to spend money to execute FIRP projects in accordance with the Program Execution Plan criteria. NNSA Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation (PPBE) Guidance Documents define the NNSA PPBE processes. FY2009 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration documents the DOE budgeting decisions.

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has developed and implemented a system for evaluating the effectiveness of its strategic planning efforts, and makes improvements, as needed. As part of the annual update of the Ten Year Site Plans (TYSP), National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Headquarters, led by the FIRP, and the Field and Management and Operating contractors conduct a comprehensive review of the sites' TYSPs and identify lessons learned and areas requiring improvement. Both site-specific and complex-wide program strategic planning issues are addressed. The most significant site-specific program planning deficiencies are identified by formal memorandum to the site managers (for example a site's development of a TYSP 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 final TYSPs are reviewed by NNSA Headquarters and the program to ensure that needed revisions have been appropriately incorporated. Corrective actions and process improvements are subsequently fed into the execution process. Specific strategic planning guidance is included, for site planning, in the annual TYSP Guidance. As an example, FIRP has identified the lack of a post-FIRP facility investment program as a strategic deficiency. A complete post-FIRP facility investment program will continue to eliminate old, unused buildings (footprint reduction), arrest the deterioration of the complex infrastructure due to underfunding of maintenance, and initiate modernization. FIRP has proposed a complete solution to this deficiency as part of the FY2009-2013 and the FY2010-2014 budget cycles. In particular, footprint reduction has been addressed in the FY2009-2013 budget cycle.

Evidence: The annual Ten Year Site Plan (TYSP) Guidance implements changes to the ten-year planning process when it is issued. These changes are identified as part of the annual TYSP review process which incorporates feedback from all of the relevant defense programs. TYSP Formal Comments to Site Managers identify lessons learned, planning and strategies presented in the TYSP that meet the intent of NNSA Strategic Planning Guidance and other strategic direction from HQ, and identifies gaps between the information presented in the TYSP and the strategic guidance from HQ. In most cases, the formal comments require resubmission of the parts of the TYSP that are not acceptable. Review Process for National Nuclear Security Administration FY 2008 TYSPs ensures that the scope of review is sufficient to meet the intent of the planning process. FY2009 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration is based on the TYSPs and reflected in the following year TYSP submission. This ties the planning process to the budgeting process.

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: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has a core business focus to consider alternatives and trade-offs as part of pre-project planning and during the establishment of project baselines as part of the application of a graded approach to Department of Energy Order 413.3.entitled "Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets" Tradeoffs are considered in each phase of the program/project's development and execution. The site's prioritization process considers funding, mission priorities and acquisition strategies, legal and regulatory requirements, urgency of need, and funding efficiency criteria, as appropriate. Sites are required to prioritize projects to provide the most beneficial infrastructure revitalization opportunities consistent with mission requirements. Cost, schedule and technical performance, and achieving risk reductions are an integral part of setting priorities, sequencing work and responding to the most serious risks first. The program projects are executed through Management and Operating (M&O) performance-based contracts whereby risk is shared with the M&O contractor through contractual instruments. Contractor results are considered in award fee determinations and contract extend/compete deliberations by the National Nuclear Security Administration.

Evidence: A graded approach to DOE Order 413.3 Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets requires that a project's acquisition plan is evaluated against alternatives and that the execution strategies are also evaluated against alternatives. The FIRP Site Prioritized Project Lists (SPPLs) incorporate the Program criteria and a consideration for tradeoffs between project benefits when prioritizing and ranking the projects. Projects are scored using the FIRRS Matrix located in the FY2008 Program Execution Plan.

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: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program regularly collects timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and uses it to manage the program and improve performance. The program requires quarterly status reports from the sites/ Management and Operating (M&O) contractors for all active program projects as well as a site level "roll-up" status report. The reports provide an assessment of each project's cost, scope, and schedule status and other key project information related to performance measures, milestones, baselines and changes, financial data, and program manager assessments. Earned Value Management is implemented within the FIRP using a "graded-approach" consistent with Departmental project management guidance. Sites report variances from planned project baselines in accordance with prescribed reporting thresholds. Variances are evaluated against established performance criteria in order to assess each project as either Green (on track), Yellow (at risk), or Red (out-of-tolerance). If a project is Red or Yellow, it is more closely monitored and is required to submit corrective action plans and must follow through with the corrective actions as agreed to with executive management to remedy the project issues. The performance of the Site Office program partners (including the Site Office team and M&O Contractor team) is directly connected to the performance of the program. Site Office and M&O Contractor performance goals and targets are rolled up at the headquarters level to reflect the overall program targets and goals. Overall program progress is a rollup of site-level program partners' performance progress.

Evidence: The Baseline, Analysis, Reporting, and Tracking Tool (BARTT) is used to collect full project data from the Site Offices on a quarterly basis. The data is reported in the Quarterly Status Reports and a variety of other reports: -Work Authorizations -Small Business Report -Project Summary Report -Program Summary Report -Project Closeout Report -Comprehensive Project List -Site Prioritized Project Lists FY 2008 National Nuclear Security Administration Integrated Facilities and Infrastructure Crosscut Budget integrates facilities and maintenance funding at all eight Sites to achieve a corporate snapshot of the maintenance and facilities and infrastructure spending. This is done on a quarterly basis.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers and program partners are held accountable for achieving key program results and standards. The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) Execution Plan outlines the organizational structure, roles, and responsibilities of the program managers at Headquarters, Site Office, and Management and Operating (M&O) contractor levels. The Program Implementation Plan is timed to be issued after the Program Execution Plan and concurrent with the Approved Funding Plan and establishes the annual performance goals for the program in terms of dollar value of deferred maintenance, gross square feet of excess facilities eliminated, and facility condition indices achieved. Program performance is incorporated into the evaluation standards of the senior Program Managers responsible for achieving program results. For example, the Program Manager's appraisal includes elements and targets for deferred maintenance, footprint reduction and project cost, schedule and scope that align with the program's annual and long-term measures. All of the National Nuclear Security Administration's M&O contracts are performance-based, consistent with Department of Energy Acquisition Regulations (DEAR) to emphasize contractor performance and accountability. Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans (PEPs) are used to hold contractors accountable for achieving key program results. Failure to achieve stated objectives leads to reductions of the annual performance fee that the contractor earns. Each Site Office Federal Program Manager is required to execute according to a Site-Level Program Execution Plan that is reviewed and approved by the headquarters program office, whose guidance emanates from the headquarters-issued Program Execution Plan.

Evidence: The Program Manager's Performance Appraisal incorporates the FIRP's goals into the personnel measures. The Annual Program Implementation Plan communicates the goals to the Field. The Management and Operating (M&O) Contractor Performance Evaluation Plans (PEP) and evaluations incorporate the program's annual and long-term goals into the M&O Contractor award fee structure. The PEP Guidance from NA-50 communicates these expectations to the Site Offices for incorporation into the contractor performance plans. Additionally, the program team incorporates performance measures into the annual personnel reviews. FY 2008 PEP Guidance communicates this to the Sites. An example of Contractor Performance Evaluation Plan is LLNL. The Baseline, Analysis, Reporting, and Tracking Tool (BARTT) is used to collect full project data from the Site Offices on a quarterly basis. The data is reported in the Quarterly Status Reports and a variety of other reports: -Work Authorizations -Small Business Report -Project Summary Report -Program Summary Report -Project Closeout Report -Comprehensive Project List -Site Prioritized Project Lists The reports are used by management to assess performance and make management decisions.

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

Explanation: Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) funding is allocated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose, and is accurately reported. The majority of FIRP funding is allocated at the start of the year and as needed via the Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration Approved Funding Program. This site level funding is matched to performance goals and work requirements that are presented in the Implementation Plans via Work Authorizations. The Work Authorizations show the amount of funding being obligated to each site per project. Funding is obligated in a timely manner at the beginning of the fiscal year because the review of proposed projects occurs in the 4th quarter of the fiscal year prior to execution. Typically, FIRP obligates more than 99% of its funding within the fiscal year that it is authorized. Expenditures are tracked monthly and carryover expenses are carefully managed through the Department's financial reporting system. The program obligates funds in a timely manner, as evidenced by the following: The FY 2008 total obligation authority is $179,382,002. Of this amount, as of March 2008, the program has obligated $167,084,843 (93.1%). All funds are projected to be obligated by the end of FY 2008. As required in National Nuclear Security Administration, the program funding is obligated to the Management and Operating (M&O) contractors at each site and they are responsible for executing the work through a mix of sources best suited to the needs of the projects, including in-house workforce and/or subcontractors. Additionally, M&O contractors and the M&O subcontractors are accountable to the contracting regulations within the M&O contract for that site.

Evidence: The Work Authorizations show the amount of funding being obligated to each site per project and an associated scope of work per project. Approved Funding Program is used to allocate funding at the beginning of the year and throughout the year. The Obligation and Cost Report from the I-Manage Data Warehouse indicate that the program funds are obligated and costed in a timely manner.

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has procedures to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. FIRP's two outcome efficiency measures evaluate the condition of critical and non-critical facilities and infrastructure as a function of deferred maintenance, or the facility condition index. FIRP improves the facility condition of National Nuclear Security Administration property by completing deferred maintenance. In addition, the program has implemented a disciplined program/project management process that ensures efficient use of dollars expended during execution. As described in the Program Execution Plan, the program is "projectized", which means that it is managed as a portfolio of discrete projects. The program uses the industry standard benchmark of a minimum 50% return on investment (dollars associated with deferred maintenance divided by the cost of project) in order for a Site's portfolio of projects to be approved. The sites establish project cost, schedule, and scope baselines and routinely measure and report their performance to Headquarters in an online project management system, Baseline, Analysis, Reporting, and Tracking Tool (BARTT). To incentivize efficient and effective project management and performance, project underruns remain at the sites to accomplish additional high-priority scope from the program's Site-Level Prioritized Project Lists (SPPL). Further, the program has defined procedures for establishment of contingency for the program's projects that are within engineering standards and appropriately reflect the project's risk. Specific examples include: (1) Procuring decontamination, decommissioning and demolition services through a nationally advertised open competitive process; (2) Instituting a multi-site Roofing Partnership with NNSA sites, using a contractor that has proven expertise, demonstrated quality, and significant cost savings; (3) Implementing best business practices to ensure that facilities demolition costs are benchmarked and achieve best-in-class; (4) Instituting a de-layered, flattened management structure consistent with the operating principle that Headquarters defines "what" needs to be done, while the sites execute "how" projects are managed.

Evidence: The FIRP Program Execution Plan (PEP) sets the tone of the program starting on page 1 in the Program Description. The program is defined as a series of repair and infrastructure projects and all efficiencies and cost effectiveness can be measured at the project level. The FIRP Implementation Plan sets the overall goals of the program and associates funding with a required deferred maintenance goal which establishes the return on investment needed. Baseline, Analysis, Reporting, and Tracking Tool (BARTT), Program Summary Reports (PSRs), Quarterly Project Status Reports, Small Business Reports) is used to analyze project data. The Roofing Partnership establishes the relationship between HQ, the Kansas City Site Office, and Honeywell that allows the success of the Roof Asset Management Program.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) collaborates and coordinates effectively with related programs. The program partners with other National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) programs (for instance the Defense Programs Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) and the Federal Real Property Asset Management Initiative) to ensure that the most critical facilities and infrastructure needs of the complex are addressed. The program fully coordinates with its partners on Ten-Year Site Plans, Performance Evaluation Plans, Program Execution Plan(s), Facilities Information Management System (FIMS) and maintenance reporting, and related guidance, procedures, and reports. FIRP works with the Department of Energy Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) to implement the Department's Three Year Rolling Timeline (TYRT) which provides the strategies for implementing the DOE's Real Property Asset Management Plan (RPAM). The program also shares improved methods for corporate facilities management with OECM and others organizations within DOE. For example, the program shared the NNSA's TYSP Guidance/process with OECM and it is now being used as the Department-wide Site Planning process. The program collaborates and coordinates with other agencies and organizations to share information through the Nuclear Regulatory Council Federal Facilities Council.

Evidence: Ten Year Site Plan (TYSP) Guidance; TYSP submissions; TYSP Review Guidance; and TYSP Comments to Sites Memo. The TYSP process was adopted from NNSA and implemented in the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM). The TYSP process is a crosscutting process that integrates data from programs across defense programs in order to produce an integrated facilities and infrastructure site plan. DOE Order 430.1B Real Property Asset Management Order implements consistent asset management requirements across the complex, which requires integration across programs and sites. DOE Three Year Rolling Timeline; Implementing the Goals and Objectives of Asset Management Plan; FY2009 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA); Deferred Maintenance Reduction Summits I-III were used during the beginning of the program to collaborate with the Site Offices and Management and Operating contractors on the development of the FIRP; Joint FIRP/Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities workshops and meetings establish continuity between the two programs; Integrated Construction Program Plan issued by NNSA incorporates all the Capital Line Items into a corporate roll-up of the NNSA's Line Item commitments.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program uses strong financial management practices outlined in the Department of Energy's (DOE)financial management policies, procedures, and practices that meet all statutory requirements. DOE provides accounting services to the program. FIRP's financial statements have been given a clean audit opinion in 8 of the last 11 years. The DOE FY 2007 Agency Financial Report contains the unqualified audit opinion for the Department. The accounting reports monthly monitor obligations and costs for all projects and sites and report these to the Program Manager.

Evidence: Department of Energy (DOE) Financial Management Orders; National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Evaluation Guidance Documents located on the NNSA web-site; DOE I-Manage Data Warehouse reports centralize the Department's financial accounting and reporting system; The DOE FY 2007 Agency Financial Report contains the unqualified audit opinion for the Department. Can be found at: http://www.mbe.doe.gov/cf1-2/2007afr1.pdf

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies. The program implements a "Plan-Do-Check-Act" approach to institutionalize needed improvements in program and corporate facilities management. Improvements are identified through Lessons Learned; comparison of the program to industry best practices; complex-wide meetings, summits and workshops; and reviews/site visits. The program assesses itself internally and externally (Independent Project Reviews and evaluation reviews by third parties). In addition, the PART process has helped the program in its internal assessment processes and has also assisted the agency, and Office of Management and Budget. Improvements are implemented on an annual cycle through the Ten-Year Site Plan Guidance and Program Execution Plan. For example, the FIRP identified that the Work Authorization formats for the three subprograms lacked consistency and could potentially be used to track subprogram performance targets. Consequently, FIRP communicated a management improvement in the FY2005 Program Execution Plan that implemented a standardized Work Authorization format for consistency that provided additional clarity in tracking program performance metrics.

Evidence: Ten Year Site Plan (TYSP) Lessons Learned are communicated in the TYSP Approval Memos Funding of condition assessments at the National Nuclear Security Administration Sites facilitated an accurate and consistent baseline for the program. Independent Project Reviews assess the progress made against implemented improvements. Program Execution Plan (PEP) implements program changes due to any identified management deficiencies.

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) is managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals. The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) operates within a Government-Owned, Contractor-Operated structure, which at its core is built upon performance-based contracting from its Management and Operating (M&O) site contractors. The quality, capability, deliverables, and performance characteristics are specified in Performance Evaluation Plans (PEPs). The NNSA issued direction that requires contractor deliverables support the program's Deferred Maintenance Reduction Goals. FIRP establishes cost, schedule, and performance goals through a disciplined project management approach. The sites establish execution year baselines for projects that provide credible cost, schedule (discrete milestones) and scope and submit their baseline information for Program Manager approval. The program's Work Authorizations delineate the funding and provide a statement of work that includes a detailed description of the work to be performed including cost, summary milestones, and performance measures/expectations.

Evidence: Performance Evaluation Plans and Program Implementation Plan; clearly define the expectations that FIRP has for performance of the Site Offices and Management and Operating contractors. The FIRP Program Execution Plan (PEP) clearly defines the deliverables for the projects managed in the program . These deliverables are reported and updated in the Baseline, Analysis, Reporting, and Tracking Tool (BARTT) online project management software. Thresholds for satisfactory project execution are outlined in the PEP. After projects are approved in the Work Authorizations (WAs) for funding, they must submit approved baselines per the FIRP PEP. All projects are then measured against these baselines. If a project is deficient, it must go through a baseline change control process to adjust the baseline.

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

Explanation: As of FY 2008, the program has four long-term goals related to two Long-Term/Annual Measures and two Efficiency Measures. The two Long-Term/Annual Measures documented in the FY2009 CBR, FY2003 FIRP PART, and FY2007 Fall Update are: (1) deferred maintenance reduction and (2) footprint reduction. The two Efficiency measures documented in the FY2009 CBR, FY2007 RTBF PART, and FY2007 FIRP Fall Update are: (3) mission-critical (MC) facility condition index (FCI) and (4) mission-dependent, not critical (MDNC) FCI. It is important to understand that NNSA redefined the Facility Condition Index (FCI) performance indicator in the FY2009-FY2013 Congressional Budget Request (as submitted by OMB to Congress) to be consistent with the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) and DOE mission-dependency categories and goals. The NNSA transitioned from the "mission-essential (ME)" designation for facilities to the Federal Real Property Council's (FRPC) revised mission dependency categories: mission-critical (MC) and mission dependant, not critical (MDNC) in 2007. The new MC and MDNC categories and the associated facilities lists are not a direct correlation to the previous ME facilities list, but have considerable overlap. The ME facilities list was approximately 1,600 buildings, whereas the validated MC facilities list is a subset of approximately 200 buildings and the MDNC facilities list is approximately 1800 buildings, most of which are from the old ME list. The last year of reporting FCI for ME facilities was FY 2007. The FY2007 results for ME FCI can be found under the (newly named) MC FCI results in the FY2009 Congressional Budget Request document (Annual Performance Results and Target section). The FY2008 results will be reported under the new MC and MDNC FCI categories. The Ten Year Site Plans document the baseline for the FCI measures. This change was also approved by OMB in its current form during the RTBF FY2007 OMB PART Assessment and subsequently in the FIRP FY2007 PART Fall Update. The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has demonstrated significant, tangible progress to date in achieving its long-term performance goals. Specifically, through the end of FY2007 the Program surpassed its annual targets to: (1) fund $75 million of deferred maintenance reduction ($15 million more than the goal of $60 million) bringing the cumulative total to 56% of the $900 million baseline; (2) fund 264,000 gross square feet (gsf) of footprint reduction (39,000 gsf more than the goal) bringing the cumulative total to 96% of the 3 million gross square feet target; and (3) achieve a corporate Facility Condition Index (FCI) for mission-essential facilities of 6.5% versus a goal of 6.8%. The FIRP contribution to the annual corporate Facility Condition Index (FCI) targets resulted in stabilization of the National Nuclear Security Administration's deferred maintenance in FY 2004 (one year early). The FIRP will achieve the long-term disposition goal one year early in FY 2008. The NNSA continues to make significant progress in reducing the FCI to industry standards due to the complementary programs of FIRP and RTBF. The FY2008 Ten Year Site Plans show that FIRP will continue to meet the annual and long-term FCI goals through FY2013. Despite the FIRP achievements against all four long-term goals related to DM, GSF, MC FCI, and MDNC FCI (three at the end of FY2007) as well as successfully reaching the GSF long-term goal one year early, OMB asserts in the final Appeal Board decision that FIRP has only demonstrated progress to a small extent. The OMB Appeal Board states that FIRP "??has two long term goals and has consistently achieved targets for one, but has no results to report against targets for the other." The program accepts the OMB direction.

Evidence: The FY2009 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), and Department of Energy/NNSA JOULE reports document these achievements. These achievements are supported by the projects authorized in the Program's Work Authorizations. The FY2008-2017 Ten Year Site Plans project that FIRP will meet both the legacy deferred maintenance and gross square feet reduction annual and long-term goals based on the Future Years Nuclear Security Plan (FYNSP). Additional reference to educational and industrial standards for the deferred maintenance backlog are: (1) National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), "Managing the Facilities Portfolio: A Practical Approach to Institutional Facility Renewal and Deferred Maintenance," 1991, and (2) 2003 Performance Evaluation available online at http:/max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment?pid=1713&aid=1590

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

Explanation: As of FY 2008, the program has four long-term goals related to two Long-Term/Annual Measures and two Efficiency Measures. The two Long-Term/Annual Measures documented in the FY2009 CBR, FY2003 FIRP PART, and FY2007 Fall Update are: (1) deferred maintenance reduction and (2) footprint reduction. The two Efficiency measures documented in the FY2009 CBR, FY2007 RTBF PART, and FY2007 FIRP Fall Update are: (3) mission-critical (MC) facility condition index (FCI) and (4) mission-dependent, not critical (MDNC) FCI. The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program and program partners achieve their annual performance goals. The annual performance goals and results reported to date are provided in the FY2009 Congressional Budget Request as submitted by OMB to Congress. The Program, including program partners, met all of its FY2007 annual performance goals. The Program is on track to achieve its FY 2008 annual performance goals for deferred maintenance, footprint reduction, and facilities condition index (FCI). The annual goals for deferred maintenance and footprint reduction focus on required results necessary to achieve the overall program long term goals. The Program's annual performance goals and results are reported in the Department of Energy Joule System and in the Congressional Budget Request. The Program's partners, National Nuclear Security Administration Sites and Management and Operating contractors, have committed to the achievement of the FIRP annual performance goals. The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has achieved the annual performance goals for all of the FIRP performance measures every year since FY2003. Specifically, the FCI performance measure has existed since FY2002. The Facility Condition Index target improved from 7.2% to 6.5% against a long-term goal of 5% for mission-essential (ME) facilities. NNSA redefined the Facility Condition Index (FCI) performance indicator in the FY2009-FY2013 Congressional Budget Request (as submitted by OMB to Congress) to be consistent with the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) and DOE mission-dependency categories and goals. The NNSA transitioned to these goals in 2007. The older ME facilities list was approximately 1,600 buildings, whereas the validated MC facilities list is a subset of approximately 200 buildings and the MDNC facilities list is approximately 1800 buildings, most of which are from the old ME list. The last year of reporting FCI for ME facilities was FY 2007. The FY2007 results for ME FCI can be found under the (newly named) MC FCI results in the FY2009 Congressional Budget Request document (Annual Performance Results and Target section). The FY2008 results will be reported under the new MC and MDNC FCI categories. The Ten Year Site Plans document the baseline for the FCI measures. This change was also approved by OMB in its current form during the RTBF FY2007 OMB PART Assessment and subsequently in the FIRP FY2007 PART Fall Update. Despite the FIRP achieving the annual goals related to DM, GSF, and ME FCI since FY2002, OMB asserts in the final Appeal Board decision that FIRP has only demonstrated success to a small extent. The program accepts the OMB direction in part for the lack of an annual performance measure related to its new long-term performance goal on "mission-dedicated, non-critical" infrastructure.

Evidence: The FY2009 Congressional Budget Request: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Department of Energy/NNSA JOULE reports document these achievements. These achievements are supported by the projects authorized in the program's Work Authorizations.

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has demonstrated improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year. The program has implemented two efficiency measures with the Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) program. The measures are the Facility Condition Index (FCI) for mission-critical and FCI for mission-dependent facilities. These are used to evaluate the effectiveness of the Program in reducing the maintenance backlog and returning the condition of the National Nuclear Security Administration facilities to industry standards. The efficiency measure target(s) for FIRP are achieved each year, indicating effective legacy deferred maintenance buydown and elimination of old facilities. The program has continually refined processes for authorizing work and requirements for periodic reporting of program and project status. These have contributed to the continued improvement in funds obligation and costing rates as evidenced by the following: FY2002 year-end obligated 98.5%, costed 35.6%; FY2003 year-end obligated 99.7%, costed 56.9%; FY2004 year-end obligated 99.9%, costed 63.9%; FY2005 year-end obligated 99.9%, costed 64%; FY 2006 year-end obligated is 100%, costed 68%; FY 2007 year-end obligated is 100% and year-end costed is 56%; FY 2008 projected year-end obligated is 100% and year-to-date costed is $59M or 33% . The program has implemented two efficiency measures with Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities (RTBF) (i.e., Facility Condition Index for mission-critical and mission-dependent facilities) that is used to evaluate the effectiveness of the program in reducing the maintenance backlog and returning the condition of the National Nuclear Security Administration facilities to industry standards. FY2006 independent program reviews focused on cost estimating and FY2007 independent program reviews focused on high efficiency, mission-critical deferred maintenance reviews. Findings and observations have been identified and the sites prepared corrective action plans to ensure improved efficiencies and cost effectiveness. The program's excess facilities disposition unit costs compare favorably to best-in-class standards as evidenced by the effective execution of the disposition subprogram and early completion of the long-term goal of disposition of 3,000,000 gross square feet.

Evidence: The National Nuclear Security Administration I-MANAGE Data Warehouse Reports document the obligations and costs numbers for the FIRP.

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

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program maintains that it compares favorably to industry and other federal agencies with similar purpose and goals, as documented in the Status of Facilities Management Best Practices at the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA). Senate Armed Services Committee language states: "The committee believes the NNSA successfully set up the Program as envisioned in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002. The Program has developed the strategic vision and roadmap for making enterprise-wide facilities management decisions using a balanced scorecard approach and has customized industry best practices to NNSA realities to achieve a "best-in-class" status. The Program has consulted with National Research Council's Federal Facilities Council and the Association of Physical Plant Administrators to ensure independent advice and review. The Program has adopted criteria with discipline and a vision for eliminating the deferred maintenance backlog." In a report assessing Department of Energy (DOE) Facility Management and Infrastructure Renewal, the National Academies' Committee on the Renewal of DOE Infrastructure have commented that the "Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program was developed to address the backlog of deferred maintenance in the NNSA and appears to be working effectively. The program has strong central direction and is linked to a 10-year comprehensive site plan and 5-year funding plans." to data, however, the composite FCI was reported as 6.6% by the NNSA, while an FCI of 5% or less, in accordance with industry standards, was adopted as the benchmark for a "Yes."

Evidence: Status of Facilities Management Best Practices at the National Nuclear Security Administration; Federal Facilities Council quarterly meetings; The National Academies, Assessment of Department of Energy Facility Management and Infrastructure Renewal (Feb 2004) Additional reference to educational and industrial standards for the deferred maintenance backlog are: (1) National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO), "Managing the Facilities Portfolio: A Practical Approach to Institutional Facility Renewal and Deferred Maintenance," 1991, and (2) 2003 Performance Evaluation available online at http:/max.omb.gov/app/part/program/assessment?pid=1713&aid=1590

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

Explanation: DOE or limited evaluations of the Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) indicate that it is effective and achieving its results. Specifically: (1) The program contracted out to an independent third-party to assess the progress of National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) corporate facilities management program as directed by the program including its performance measures. The study compared the program to other Government agencies and industry. The resulting report indicates overall that the program is effective and achieving results; (2) The NNSA Office of Project Management and Systems Support conducted Independent Project Reviews (IPRs) to provide the NNSA, including the FIRP, with feedback on the status of project development and execution. The Office of Project Management and Systems Support has stated that the "program has impressive structure, accountability, and discipline". Findings from IPRs are incorporated in the Program Execution Plan revisions; (3) Congressional reviews of the program have been favorable and indicate that the NNSA successfully set up the program as envisioned by the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2002; (4) Additionally, in August 2005, the Department of Energy Office of the Inspector General issued Letter Report OAS-L-05-09, "Audit of the NNSA's Deferred Maintenance", which closed out a 3-year audit of various aspects of the program. The Office of Inspector General found no reportable findings and noted that NNSA was making progress in reducing the deferred maintenance backlog; and (5) FIRP undergoes a semi-annual PART assessment by the NNSA Office of Planning, Programming, Budgeting & Evaluation (NA-62) and has received ratings of Effective for the last four years. FIRP was evaluated in the National Academy's 2004 review, which is within the five-year window since the last PART review. The review found that the program was structured properly, but the evauation was performed before the program could produce meaningful results. No additional external reviews were proposed by NNSA or other agencies due to the positive feedback from the National Academy's review. Additionally, FIRP does not independently solicit external reviews; this responsibility lies within the larger corporate entities of DOE and NNSA. Thus, no recent comprehensive analysis by outside evaluators (outside of NNSA) of the FIRP has been undertaken, and none is currently planned.

Evidence: August 2005, the IG issued Letter Report OAS-L-05-09, "Audit of the NNSA's Deferred Maintenance", which closed out a 3-year audit of various aspects of FIRP. The IG found no reportable findings and noted that NNSA was making progress in reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. National Academies Assessment of DOE Facility Management and Infrastructure Renewal (Feb '04) found that NNSA is an "enabler" of facilities and infrastructure management, has the best implementation of Real Property Asset Management in the DOE, and is an example of a holistic approach to facilities and infrastructure management. FIRP Independent Project Reviews: January 2002-May 2005 Summary Report (including Lessons Learned) were conducted by NA-54, NNSA's internal project management review group.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: The Facilities and Infrastructure Recapitalization Program (FIRP) has achieved all FY2002 through FY2007 program goals for deferred maintenance and footprint reduction within the budgeted costs and schedule. Program results-to-date indicate that the FY2008 deferred maintenance goal ($80M), footprint reduction goal (225,000 gross square feet), and facility condition index goals for mission critical facilities of 5% and for mission-dependant facilities of 8.25% will be exceeded within budgeted costs and schedule.

Evidence: The FIRP spends funds as planned and budgeted. The program only funds discrete projects that are approved within the program criteria and prioritized within the Integrated Prioritized Project List. Sites execute in accordance with the Approved Funding Program (AFP) and the accompanying Work Authorizations (WA) that specify each project's Statement of Work (SOW). Sites establish baselines for approved projects, execute consistent with the AFP/ WA and subsequently report project results (cost, schedule, and performance) against established baselines in the program's quarterly project status reports as well as quarterly updates to the project scope, cost, and schedule in the Baseline, Analysis, Reporting, and Tracking Tool (BARTT), which is an online project management system for projects under $5 million. The I-Manage Data Warehouse (IDW) Reports show the FIRP actual costs and projections, which verify that the program expenditures are within the appropriated levels. The Department of Energy/National Nuclear Security Administration JOULE Reports document the FIRP performance achievements.