NASA Procedural Requirements

NPR 8820.2H Effective Date: September 27, 2022 Expiration Date: September 27, 2027

Subject: Facility Project Requirements (FPR) (Updated w/Change 1)

Responsible Office: Office of Strategic Infrastructure

Appendix J. NASA's Real Estate History

J-1 NASA's Unique Real Estate Privileges. When NASA was established in 1958, it was anticipated that unique test facilities and laboratories would be necessary for the Agency to meet its aeronautics and space mission requirements. At that time, most Government Agencies were mandated to use the General Service Administration (GSA) for real estate acquisitions and divestments and for facility design/construction services. However, it was anticipated that NASA's infrastructure requirements would be beyond the capabilities typically provided by GSA.

J-2 National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. The Space Act of 1958 includes language that defines NASA's unique real estate privileges:

a. Title II Functions of the Administration, Section 203 (c) (3):

Authorizes construction, improvements or laboratories, research and testing sites and facilities as deemed necessary.

This statement that authorizes NASA to perform design and construction services for required infrastructure without having to involve GSA.

b. The Space Act also stipulates constraints for such performance as defined in Title III Appropriations, Section 310:

(A) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act, except that nothing in this Act shall authorize the appropriation of any amount for:

(1) the acquisition or condemnation of any real property OR

(2) any other item of a capital nature (such as plant or facility acquisition, construction, or expansion) which exceeds $250 thousand.

Hence, funding for new facility construction and/or major modification of existing facilities above an established threshold must be specifically appropriated by Congress.

J-3 Congressional Interest in Infrastructure. Congressional interest in NASA's infrastructure portfolio is driven by several factors:

a. High Life-Cycle Cost of Infrastructure. The life-cycle cost for infrastructure includes initial costs (studies, final design, construction, construction oversight, commissioning), outfitting costs, recurring costs (custodial, maintenance and repair, support utilities) and eventual demolition cost. Therefore, there is a desire to ensure that NASA constructs the minimum amount of infrastructure required to meets its missions.

b. Duplication Avoidance. Congress has a desire to ensure that requests for the construction of new infrastructure do not duplicate existing facilities at other Centers across the Agency.

c. Conformance to Federal Mandates. There is Congressional interest to ensure that all new NASA infrastructure conforms to current E.O.s) and other Federal Mandates. These include such requirements as ensuring that construction is being performed by Davis-Bacon labor, that facilities conform with the

requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 12131 and mandates for reduction of energy and water usage.

J-4 Inception of NASA's Construction of Facilities (CoF) Program. During the 1960s, there was a significant increase in NASA's budget for construction and major modification of infrastructure Agency- wide. Over the course of the decade, approximately $5 billion was invested in NASA's real property portfolio.

a. Congressional Reviews of 1972. The large real property expansion of the 1960s raised concerns within Congress that NASA was not adhering to the stipulations of the Space Act of 1958. Hence, three independent reviews were established: a Congressional Staff Review, a Comptroller General Study, and a General Accounting Office (GAO) Review. The findings of these reviews were documented in the Report on NASA Capital Plant Acquisition, February 1972. This report identified several irregularities:

i. Of NASA's roughly $5 billion of capital plant expansion, only about $1.6 billion (32 percent) could be traced to Congressional authorizations. Most of the unaccounted-for construction was acquired under NASA's Equipment Accounts.

ii. Facilities that were valued above the established threshold were constructed by stringing together multiple small projects that were below the threshold (a practice known as fragmentation).

iii. Unclear construction terminology and definitions led to miscommunication between NASA and Congress.

b. Establishment of the CoF Program. The findings from the Report on NASA Capital Plant Acquisition led to the establishment of NASA's formal Construction of Facilities Program. The hallmarks of this program include:

i. Methods for ensuring full disclosure of all Facility Projects across the Agency with AFPCEs that exceed the defined threshold (and thus, require appropriated funding). This includes methods for monitoring possible incidents of fragmentation.

ii. Clear and consistent language and definitions that are used among the facilities communities of practice, including such areas as design/construction, maintenance and operations, real property, and master planning. This has also improved communication between the NASA field Centers, HQ, and Congress.

DISTRIBUTION:
NODIS

This document does not bind the public, except as authorized by law or as incorporated into a contract. This document is uncontrolled when printed. Check the NASA Online Directives Information System (NODIS) Library to verify that this is the correct version before use: https://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov.