Procedural
Requirements
Effective Date: September 27, 2022
Expiration Date: September 27, 2027
|
|
NASA Procedural Requirements |
NPR 8820.2H Effective Date: September 27, 2022 Expiration Date: September 27, 2027 |
| | TOC | ChangeHistory | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | Chapter6 | Chapter7 | ApppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | AppendixE | AppendixF | AppendixG | AppendixH | AppendixI | AppendixJ | AppendixK | ALL | |
1.1.1 General. The annual facilities program is part of the Agency’s five-year budget developed in accordance with NPD 1000.0, NASA Governance and Strategic Management Handbook. The five-year budget includes the CoF and the Environmental Compliance and Restoration (EC&R) themes under the Construction, Environmental Compliance, and Restoration (CECR) Account (see Figure 1-1). The CoF theme currently includes programs for Institutional CoF, Exploration CoF, Space Operations CoF, Science CoF, and Aeronautics CoF (but are subject to change). The CECR Account is NASA’s only account approved for facilities construction projects with an AFPCE of $1 million and greater. The CECR funding is authorized for procurements only and is not available for civil servant (CS) labor or travel expenses.
a. For definition of which project elements constitute the AFPCE, refer to Appendix D. This yearly account remains available for contract obligations for six years before expiration.
b. Appendix J, NASA’s Real Estate History, identifies the Agency’s unique privileges for the design and construction of facilities and infrastructure and details the events that led to the inception of NASA’s Facilities Program.
Figure 1-1. Sample, NASA Budget Format: The CECR Account
1.1.2 CoF Project Thresholds. CoF projects are classified by dollar threshold values based upon the AFPCE. NASA’s annual appropriation legislation is the only accepted source for adjustments to CoF thresholds.
1.1.2.1 Minor Revitalization and Construction (MRC) Projects. Projects that have an AFPCE of at least $1 million, but less than $10 million. Within the CECR Account, the CoF Theme, each CoF Program contains a single project line item for all MRC CoF projects across the Agency. For example, under the Institutional CoF Program, the total budget for all Institutional MRC CoF projects across the Agency is indicated as a single MRC project line item. Hence, all Institutional CoF MRC projects across the Agency share the same six-digit Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) number in NASA’s
financial system. Additional numbering is added after the six-digit WBS number to identify the Center in which the project is to be executed, the specific project, and any project sub-elements (e.g., for phased projects).
1.1.2.2 Discrete CoF Projects. Projects that have an AFPCE of $10 million or more. Within the Construction of Facilities theme, each CoF Program contains individual line items for any Discrete CoF Projects. Hence, every Discrete CoF Project is identified with a unique six-digit WBS number in NASA’s financial system. Additional numbering is added after the six-digit WBS number to identify the Center in which the project is to be executed and to identify the specific project.
1.1.3 CoF Project Types. Under the Construction of Facilities theme, there are two project types: Institutional CoF projects, which reside under the Institutional CoF Program and Program-Direct (or program-funded) CoF projects, which reside under the current CoF Programs for Exploration, Space Operations, Science, and Aeronautics. This could be expanded in the future to include areas such as Space Technology and Space Environments Technology.
1.2.1 The Institutional CoF Program includes Facility Projects involving the construction of new institutional facilities and infrastructure or the major modification, repair, energy/water usage reduction, and demolition/deconstruction of existing institutional facilities and infrastructure. FRED manages this program and issues formal data calls to the ten NASA Centers for submission of candidate Institutional CoF projects. The Institutional CoF Program can consist of both MRC and Discrete CoF projects. Also, the Institutional CoF Program consists of multiple Institutional CoF project categories.
1.2.2 Renewal (also known as Recapitalization) Projects. Projects that reset the clock on existing capital assets. Renewal can occur through major modification of existing assets or through total asset replacement. When completed, Renewal Projects effectively result in a building or structure that is in a like-new condition and meets all current codes. Project advocacy is based on the long-term strategic benefit to the Agency and its missions and will conform to “reduce the footprint” initiatives outlined in NPD 8820.2, Design and Construction of Facilities. In addition, projects need to have an appropriate life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) per the NASA Business Case Guide for Real Property and Facilities Project Investments. Projects need to be identified in both the Agency and Center Master Plans and are formally approved by FRED. For cases where the Office of Strategic Infrastructure (OSI) and Mission Directorates agree to share costs, refer to Section 1.4.
1.2.3 Repair Projects. Projects that return institutional assets or systems to their originally designed parameters or capacity or extend their service life. This can include the repair of an asset under a single project or the renewal of a horizontal infrastructure system under a combination of phased repair projects (called Renewal by Incremental Repair). Project prioritization is established by FRED following a competitive process that evaluates how candidate projects mitigate risks to NASA missions.
1.2.4 Demolition and Consolidation Projects. Demolition projects are independent, stand-alone projects that eliminate or reduce real property assets or equipment no longer required by NASA. Consolidation projects relocate one or more functions (personnel or equipment) from a building to be demolished into underutilized spaces in another building. Hence, a Consolidation project includes funding for rehabilitation of spaces for the relocated function(s) along with funding for the demolition of the vacated
facility. Demolition and Consolidation Projects are prioritized by FRED following an established data call process. This data call also establishes a five-year Demolition/Consolidation Plan for the Agency.
1.2.5 Energy Projects. Projects that reduce existing real property energy and/or water usage. Projects are approved by FRED following an established prioritization process. In addition, Energy projects need to have an appropriate Business Case that includes a LCCA according to Federal Energy Management and Planning Programs, Subpart A Methodology and Procedures for LCCA, 10 CFR 436.
1.2.6 Facility Planning and Design (FP&D) Projects. Projects to procure professional architectural- engineering (A-E) services for planning and final design of projects within the Institutional CoF Program. This funding can also be used to procure services for historic mitigation and environment assessments associated with the project being designed. FP&D funding for final design services is typically allocated two years in advance of the year of project execution.
1.2.7 Supplemental Projects. Projects appropriated on an as-needed basis to repair facilities and infrastructure damaged by acts of nature (e.g., hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes).
1.3.1 General. Mission Directorates that require Facility Projects with an AFPCE of $1 million or greater to support their programs and projects will transfer funds into the CECR Account. These types of funding transfers initiate Program-Direct CoF projects. Program-Direct CoF projects can include the following:
a. The construction of new real property assets that are required specifically for the execution of Mission Directorate programs and/or projects.
b. Major modifications that add additional capacity or capability to existing real property assets required specifically for the execution of Mission Directorate programs and/or projects.
c. Repairs to existing real property assets or replacement of obsolete items (ROI) required specifically for the execution of Mission Directorate programs and/or projects. These repairs are not subject to a prioritization process by FRED. Not all repairs require funds to be transferred into the CECR Account. Refer to Section 1.5.3 for guidance.
1.3.2 Funding Transfers. The transfer of funding into the CECR Account should be identified by the funding organization during NASA’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) process. As such, Program-Direct CoF projects should be identified in the Congressional Justification (CJ) document one-year prior to the fiscal year (FY) of execution. If a Mission Directorate identifies a facility project after the PPBE cycle, funding transfers will be identified in an Operating Plan Change. Upon approval by Congress, the funding will be identified in the CECR Account in the Initial Operating Plan (IOP) for the FY of execution. Refer to Appendix I, Local and/or Program-Funded Project Flowchart for guidance.
1.3.3 Data Call. FRED issues a yearly Program-Direct CoF Data Call to the Mission Directorates for candidate projects in accordance with the Strategic Programming Guidance (SPG) and the Program Resource Guidance (PRG) budget process. The Exploration CoF, Space Operations CoF, Science CoF and Aeronautics CoF Programs will each have a designated individual to coordinate the CoF Projects for that given Program. The purpose of this data call is to ensure that FRED understands the intent of candidate projects and to ensure compliance with applicable Agency and Federal policies. Candidate projects should be clearly identified and supported by both programmatic and facilities personnel at the Center in which the project is to be executed. In addition, the Center CoF Program Manager shall clearly understand and support the candidate project(s).
1.3.4 Project Requirements. Projects can be either MRC or Discrete. Once established, Program-Direct CoF projects follow all the same procedures as defined within this NPR. New construction will demonstrate integration with the Agency and Center Master Plans.
a. All Discrete Projects require a budget narrative and a business case according to Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, OMB Circular A-11 (08/03/2012) and Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, OMB Circular A-94. An LCCA per the NASA Business Case Guide for Real Property and Facilities Project Investments is an acceptable business case. The LCCA will include an evaluation of the status quo and of existing facilities and capabilities (e.g., within NASA, within the Federal Government, within U.S. industry, within academia) that could be modified or upgraded to meet the program requirements. New construction of a facility or capability can only be justified after a thorough investigation of these alternatives. The Business Case documentation should be stored as an official record with other project records.
b. In accordance with the Business Services Assessment for Facilities, if a new capability or facility is funded through Program-Direct CoF, the LCCA will demonstrate the plan and commitment of the Mission Directorate to fund the continued M&O of any new facility or capability while required by the program or project.
c. The LCCA will include the estimate and fund sources for all corollary investments such as outfitting, ground support equipment, special test equipment (STE) and the fund source for their continued maintenance and operations.
d. The relevant demolition offset for additions or new construction projects will be costed within the project and submitted in the budget narrative and be considered in the LCCA calculations.
1.3.5 Applicable Directives and Policies. Since a Program-Direct CoF project is either constructing new facilities and systems, or modifying or repairing existing facilities and systems, the project needs to be managed in accordance with the requirements of this NPR. In accordance with the applicable policy requirement for the sponsoring program (e.g., per NPR 7120.5, NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Requirements, per NPR 7120.8, NASA Research and Technology Program and Project Management Requirements, or per NPR 8600.1, NASA Capability Portfolio Management Requirements), deliverables from project management key decision points (KDPs) are factored into the facility project planning, design, and construction phases.
1.3.6 Studies and Final Design. Program-Direct Project activities such as studies, PERs and final designs that require professional A-E services are funded with non-CoF resources (e.g., unlike Institutional CoF project PERs and final designs funded with CoF FP&D). Hence, Mission Directorates are not required to transfer funds into the CECR Account for the procurement of these services. However, the Mission Directorate CoF Program Manager, Center CoF Program Manager, or the FPM
should forward the A-E services funding information to the FRED Financial Analyst to record on a NF- 1878, Funding Approval Document.
1.3.7 Appropriations Provision. Once the CECR Account budget for a given FY is established in NASA’s appropriation, the maximum budget increase for that year is limited to a percentage of the original value. The maximum budget decrease is also limited to a percentage of the original budget value. The values can change and are within the Administrative Provisions of the appropriation. Given these restrictions, mission directorates need to ensure that Program-Direct CoF projects are identified during the PPBE process for inclusion in the President’s Budget/CJ. When Operating Plan changes become necessary, the Mission Directorates should alert FRED and the other Mission Directorate point of contacts (POCs) as to the intended change to allow for coordination and, if required, prioritization of competing requirements.
1.3.8 Incrementally Funded Project. In some circumstances, the full scope of a Program-Direct CoF project may be incrementally funded over multiple FYs. Upon completion of each project increment, the product may not meet the “functional” definition; however, the product produced by each increment needs to be usable by the Program. All project increments and AFPCEs will be clearly defined and fully disclosed to FRED using NF-1509, Facility Project Approval & Cost Estimate Document prior to execution of the first project increment. Also, the FPM shall submit a separate NF-1739, Capitalization Determination Form (CDF) for all project increments and an NF-1046 within 30 days of completion of each increment. An incrementally funded project approach is not permitted under the Institutional CoF Program (e.g., each phase of an Institutional CoF Project is to be completely functional and usable).
1.4.1 General. There are cases where the OSI and the Mission Directorates will agree to share the cost of renewal projects that provide mutual benefit to all parties. For these projects, a discussion will occur between potential cost-sharing partners, and the outcome of the discussion will be documented and stored in the FRED-approved database.
1.4.2 Cost-Sharing Discussion. If cost-sharing is identified during the Formulation Phase of the project, the Agency CoF Program Manager shall initiate the negotiations with the relevant Center CoF Program Manager and the potential Cost-Sharing organizations. Proposed renewal projects should be identified in the Agency Master Plan (AMP) and support missions as identified in the Agency Mission Planning Manifest (AMPM). Projects involving major modification of existing facilities also need to be supported by the latest findings of the AMP Asset Inventory Assessment (AIA).
1.4.3 Cost-Sharing Agreement. As determined during the negotiations, the Cost-Sharing agreement will identify the funding strategies to be incorporated into the PPBE process in accordance with NPR 9420.1, Budget Formulation; NPR 7120.5, Appendix I; or NPR 7120.8, including identification of any transfer of funds into the CECR account. The completed agreement will be uploaded into the FRED-approved database by the Center CoF Program Manager. If mission conditions change, the project scope changes, or the AFPCE for construction increases by more than 10 percent, the Cost-Sharing agreement will be amended to account for the changes and uploaded into the FRED-approved database. Refer to Section 1.3.2 Funding Transfers where transfer of funds and increase of the transfer funding into the CECR account are identified. Future NF-1509s will clearly identify all funding sources for the project by including unique Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) numbers for activities such as Studies, Final Design, Construction, Commissioning, or other project phases.
1.5.1 General. Non-CoF Facility Projects, also called “Local Projects” or “Local Authority Projects,” are executed with funds managed at the Center level (refer to Appendix I, Local and/or Program-Funded Project Flowchart for guidance). All Facility Projects with an AFPCE equal to or greater than $100,000 require the following:
a. Prior to project execution, Center submission of form NF-1509 via the FRED-approved database. For projects with an AFPCE less than $1 million, the forms are submitted to FRED for information only. For projects with an AFPCE equal to or greater than $1 million (e.g., repair projects conforming to NPR 8831.2, Facilities Maintenance and Operations Management), the forms are submitted to FRED for approval prior to execution. FRED reserves the right to halt the execution of any project for reasons of noncompliance with NASA policy, the appearance of fragmentation, or other related concerns.
b. Prior to project execution, submission of NF-1739 and NF-1509 to the Center’s Real Property Accountable Officer (RPAO). Form NF-1509 will be submitted to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) for projects with an AFPCE of $500,000 (lower threshold for capitalization) and greater.
c. Upon completion of execution, submission of NF-1046, Transfer and/or Notification of Acceptance of Accountability of Real Property, to the Center’s RPAO. This form should be submitted within 30 days of project completion or at the time of issuance of beneficial occupancy (new construction or major modification).
1.5.2 Non-CoF New Construction and Major Modification Projects. Facility new construction projects result in the installation of new real property assets or systems. Facility major modification projects increase the footprint of existing real property assets or systems or increase an asset’s originally designed capacity or capability. Non-CoF construction or major modification projects will conform to the Agency’s Reduce the Footprint initiative as defined in NPD 8820.2. New construction or major modification projects implemented with non-CoF funding are required to have an AFPCE below the MRC threshold.
1.5.3 Non-CoF Repair Projects. Facility repair projects return an existing real property asset or system to its originally designed capacity or capability. Repair can include the replacement of existing assets or systems with new materials and equipment of the same design parameters (called “repair by replacement” or “replacement of obsolete items (ROI)”). Non-CoF funding can be used for ROI repair projects without a funding threshold constraint per NPR 8831.2. Following formal approval by FRED, Centers and Mission Directorates can implement ROI repairs with local funding (i.e., funding does not need to be transferred or reprogrammed into the CECR Account).
1.5.4 Power Purchase Agreements. For agreements/procurements to purchase Center-wide utilities from local municipalities and external entities such as treated domestic water, treatment of sanitary sewer flows, natural gas, electricity, etc., refer to NPR 8831.2.
1.5.5 Other types of Non-CoF Facility Projects. The following alternative methods are currently the only methods authorized for Facility Projects (e.g., constructing new or enhancing existing real property) with an AFPCE equal to or greater than $1 million: Energy Savings Performance Contracts (ESPC) as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 8287 et seq.; Utility Energy Service Contracts (UESC) as authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 8256 (c) et seq.; Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) as authorized by 51 U.S.C. § 20145; and National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as authorized by 54 U.S.C. § 306108.
1.5.6 Projects funded by these alternative methods require full disclosure.
1.6.1 Specific individuals are identified to manage the Agency’s Facilities Program at both NASA HQ and at each field Center.
1.6.2 Agency CoF Program Management Responsibilities. Individuals within FRED are responsible for Agency management of the Construction of Facilities theme. This requires collaboration with CoF Program counterparts at the field Centers and subsequent coordination with the (OMB) and the applicable Congressional committees.
1.6.2.1 Agency CoF Program Manager. Responsible for managing the PPBE cycle for the Construction of Facilities theme. This includes managing the Institutional CoF Project prioritization processes, the Program-Direct CoF project identification process and funds-transfer process, and all Congressional notification processes that are required up to the point of funds distribution to the Centers. They are also responsible for initiating cost-sharing discussions for renewal projects (see Section 1.4) and providing Program budget, schedule, and risk status of approved/funded projects.
1.6.2.2 Agency CoF Program Officer(s). These individuals are assigned to act as official CoF Program liaisons for a subset of Centers as assigned by the Director of FRED. Individuals are responsible for approving project documentation and overseeing budgets, schedules, and technical status for their assigned Centers. These duties include oversight of all assigned Center projects included within the Institutional and Mission Directorate CoF Programs.
1.6.2.3 EPM. Provides FRED oversight, support, and guidance to Center FPMs for selected Facility Projects that present a high financial risk to the Agency. Projects could include Discrete Institutional CoF Projects, highly complex or highly technical projects, or mission critical Program-Direct CoF Projects. An EPM can be assigned to a project by FRED management or requested by Center management. The EPM will represent FRED in construction partnering activities. Representatives that report to the EPM can be assigned to attend weekly construction meetings with the construction contractor. The EPM could also be identified as a member of a Change Control Board for a discrete project (as identified in the Facility Project Management Plan (FPMP)). Additional duties include developing Agency-wide project management standards and practices, developing a policy for management of engineering and construction data (e.g., drawing file management, a lessons-learned database, BIM standards and file management), managing and aligning Agency specifications, and managing CoF project claims.
1.6.2.4 Agency Demolition Program Manager (ADPM). Responsible for managing facility demolition projects funded within the Institutional CoF program or as funded by the Mission Directorate programs. Also acts as the official Demolition Program liaison to counterparts at the Centers.
1.6.2.5 Agency Energy Program Manager for Facility Projects. Responsible for program management of Facility Projects involving energy savings and sustainability improvements funded by any of the following sources: the Institutional CoF Program (see Section 1.2.5); the Agency 35 percent of Enhanced Use Lease (EUL) net revenue; ESPCs; and UESCs. Further duties of this individual are defined per NPR 8570.1, NASA Energy and Water Management Program.
1.6.2.6 Agency Sustainable Facilities Coordinator. Responsible for ensuring that Agency-wide major modification and new construction projects comply with current Federal and Agency Guiding Principles for Federal High-Performance Sustainable Facilities and are certified under a third-party building certification system (See Section 1.10). Also acts as the official liaison for the Sustainability Facilities Coordinator counterparts at the Centers. Additional duties include providing and presenting annual Agency Sustainability Metrics to the OMB), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Department of Energy, the General Services Administration (GSA), and within other NASA organizations.
1.6.3 Center CoF Program Management Responsibilities. The individuals at each of the 10 NASA Centers required to manage the CoF theme. They are responsible for managing formal responses to FRED data calls; establishing a Center advocacy process for candidate projects; tracking the CECR, EUL, and NHPA fund releases; and tracking/reporting project financial and technical status to their counterparts in FRED. Center CoF Program Managers also shall assume responsibilities for their component facilities. Centers can identify separate individuals with responsibilities to manage Program- Direct CoF projects included under the CoF theme. These individuals should be regularly involved in the same community of practice activities as their Institutional CoF Program Manager counterparts.
1.6.3.1 Center CoF Program Manager. Individual assigned to act as the Center’s official liaison to FRED for all projects proposed and ultimately funded under the CoF theme. This individual’s POC is the assigned Agency CoF Program Officer within FRED. Duties include collaborating with Mission Directorate POCs to help advocate for candidate Program-Direct CoF projects for the Exploration,
Space Operations, Science, and Aeronautics Programs. Center Program Managers also shall be involved on a regular basis in their relevant communities of practice supported by FRED.
1.6.3.2 Center Demolition Program Manager (CDPM). Individual assigned to act as the Center’s official liaison to FRED for all demolition projects proposed and ultimately funded under the CoF theme. This individual’s direct POC is the assigned ADPM within FRED. Duties also include collaborating with Center Mission Directorate POCs to help advocate for candidate Program-Direct Demolition projects for the Exploration, Space Operations, Science, and Aeronautics Programs.
1.6.3.3 Center Energy Manager. Responsible for developing energy/water investment proposals from energy/water audit results and coordinating implementation through available funding. Funding mechanisms include Energy Savings Investments funded within the Institutional CoF Program, energy and sustainability upgrades funded by the Agency 35 percent of EUL net revenue, ESPCs, and UESCs. Further duties of this individual are defined per NPR 8570.1.
1.6.3.4 Center Sustainable Facilities Coordinator. Individual assigned to act as the Center’s official liaison to FRED for ensuring that major modification and new construction projects comply with the Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings and Associated Instructions and the third-party building certification process. The assigned individual should be a member of the Facility Project Team through all project phases. Additional responsibilities include submitting annual metrics to FRED for inclusion in multiple Agency and Federal Government reports. This individual’s direct POC is the assigned Agency Sustainable Facilities Coordinator within FRED.
1.6.3.5 Center Institutional Safety Discipline Leads (ISDL). Individuals assigned to ensure facilities, systems, and activities are safe and conform to Agency, Center, and regulatory policy and requirements. The roles and responsibilities for these individuals, which include the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ), are specified in NPR 8715.1, NASA Safety and Health Program.
1.6.4 Mission Directorate CoF Program Responsibilities. Each Directorate assigns an individual to coordinate the CoF Projects within the Directorate. Individuals are responsible for communicating all Mission Directorate facilities needs to the Agency CoF Program Manager and CoF Program Officers within FRED and with the CoF Program Manager at the Center where the project is to be executed. Additional duties include assisting in the coordination of the funds transfer process from other Mission Directorates to the CECR Account.
1.7.1 Requirements. The following are required for all CoF facilities projects AFPCE equal to or greater than $1 million):
1.7.1.1 Full Disclosure. Center CoF Program Managers shall provide full disclosure of the facility project’s scope, justification, and overall cost to FRED, who will subsequently inform Congress (as applicable). Full disclosure is accomplished through submission of form NF-1509 via the FRED- approved database. In addition, a Quad Chart that is submitted to FRED aids in the full disclosure of a project.
1.7.1.2 Institutional CoF Project Functionality. Institutional CoF Facility Projects, regardless of type or scope, are required to produce complete and usable assets or systems for their intended use at the time of construction substantial completion. As such, Institutional Facility Projects will not be dependent on any additional funding to produce a usable asset or system. Where applicable, additional non-CoF project funding can be allocated for outfitting. (See Chapter 5 and Appendix D).
1.7.1.3 Program-Direct CoF Project Functionality. Unless specifically identified within the NF-1509 form, Program-Direct CoF Facility Projects, regardless of type or scope, are required to produce complete and usable assets or systems for their intended use at the time of construction substantial completion (refer to Section 1.3.8). Where applicable, additional non-CoF funding from the Program can be allocated for special test equipment (STE) or an integrated systems test (IST).
1.7.1.4 OCFO Review. In accordance with NPR 9250.1, Property, Plant and Equipment and Operating Materials and Supplies, all Facility Projects require review by the Center’s OCFO prior to project execution. This is accomplished through submission of NF-1739. This review is required to identify if facility investments are to be considered as capital investments or expenditures.
1.7.1.5 RPAO Notification. In accordance with NPR 8800.15, Real Estate Management Program, Chapter 2 Real Property Accountability, FPMs shall notify the Center RPAO of the completion of a facilities project. This is accomplished through submitting NF-1046.
1.7.2 Fragmentation. NASA Centers are prohibited from fragmenting—splitting Facility Projects into parts, each having cost estimates below the MRC threshold, with the intent of circumventing the CoF approval process. In establishing a project scope, a NASA Center will include all necessary elements to ensure functionality within a single project to avoid fragmentation or the appearance of fragmentation.
Note: An Incrementally Funded CoF Project is not considered a fragmented project in that the approach has been approved by Congress and the scope and cost is fully disclosed to FRED during the project formulation phase.
1.7.2.1 CoF project life cycle. As indicated in Section 1.1.1.a, the CECR Account for a given FY remains available for contract obligations for six years before expiration. However, for any given CoF Project, FRED will initiate a review of a project’s unobligated budget at the start of the fourth year following the year of appropriated funding. If the Center CoF Program Manager does not have a compelling reason for use of the unobligated budget, the funding will be considered as “residual” and will be sent back to the Agency or Mission Directorate for other high-priority needs.
1.8.1 CoF Project Life Cycle. The CoF project life cycle, shown in Figure 1-2, comprises the project formulation phases (including planning and development), final design, implementation (including construction, commissioning, and activation), M&O, decommissioning, and disposal/demolition. The figure shows the full life cycle, and this NPR addresses all phases except Operations, Phase E. NASA Centers and HQ formulate the CoF program through a collaborative process that spans four consecutive phases: concept presentations for out-year projects, prioritization of construction, design funding, and construction funding.
Figure 1-2. CoF Project Life Cycle
1.8.2 Guidance. Each year, NASA's OCFO issues guidance to the Centers for reporting their budget requests. The OCFO coordinates this through the Mission Directorates and Mission Support Offices.
1.8.3 Establishing Project Scope. The scope of a project defines the extent of the proposed work, project goals, and justification. The Center-assigned FPM shall establish the project scope in cooperation with Center management, other project stakeholders, and affected Safety and Mission Assurance Discipline Leads. The scope is formally documented on the NF-1509.
1.8.4 Phased Projects. Phasing involves repairing or replacing a facility in segments. NASA is authorized to accomplish work in phases. A completed phase needs to be fully functional and usable (e.g., a useful segment that stands alone and independent of subsequent phases). The FPM shall include a statement on the NF-1509 that explains the scope of the phase, how many phases are planned, and the associated estimated AFPCE of all phases. Also, the FPM shall submit a separate NF 1739, CDF) for all project phases and an NF-1046 within 30 days of completion of each phase.
1.8.5 Budget request (five-year plan). The Agency CoF Program Manager, in accordance with the Control Account Manager (CAM), shall develop and submit a budget request (five-year plan) in accordance with the annual guidance issued through the NASA OCFO (see NPR 9420.1, Budget Formulation). FRED issues data calls (for Institutional CoF and for Program-Direct CoF) to the Centers and Mission Directorates in support of the OCFO budget guidance. Subsequently, FRED and Mission Directorate stakeholders prioritize the CoF Program Agency-wide. Refer to Figure 1-3, Institutional CoF Budget Timeline (Sample) for delineation of three years from prioritization through construction.
Figure 1-3. Institutional CoF Budget Timeline (Sample)
1.8.5.1 Documentation. The Center CoF Program Manager, Demolition Program Manager, and Energy Program Manager (as applicable) shall prepare documentation to be uploaded into the FRED-approved database for approval. Refer to Appendix H for the specific data call deliverables for each project type. Typical deliverables are:
a. NASA Form 1509, Facility Project Approval Document (including the Facility Project Cost Estimate section). This document provides full disclosure to FRED regarding project scope, justification, schedule, and all project costs (e.g., study, PER, design, construction, and other burden costs). The form also includes signature blocks for Center, HQ, and Mission Directorate POCs. Refer to Appendix F for instructions on the completion of this form. The FPM shall generate this form at the time of project formulation and update and resubmit this form for all subsequent funding requests (e.g., final design funding, construction funding, and as funding is added to or subtracted from the AFPCE during execution).
b. Project Narrative (also called Project One-Page Narrative). A description of the justification for the project, the scope of work contents, and the specific impacts to NASA missions (if a project repair will mitigate mission risks). The Narrative should also include all project phases and associated budgets (if applicable). Ideally, this document should be confined to one page (two pages maximum).
c. Quad Chart. Required for all CoF Projects regardless of category. A single chart that provides the following project information: Quadrant 1 – Project title, AFPCE, final design cost estimate, and the Center’s core capabilities that are supported by the project; Quadrant 2 – A project graphic that indicates the nature and scope of the work; Quadrant 3 – Details of the project scope; Quadrant 4 – Details of the NASA Mission impact and how the project will mitigate these impacts.
d. Risk Assessment. Required for all Institutional CoF Repair Projects per the data call requirements. NPR 8000.4, Agency Risk Management Procedural Requirements, defines institutional risks assigned to infrastructure that affect capabilities and resources necessary for mission success. The Institutional CoF Repair Program is focused on mitigating institutional risks associated with real property. Risk assessments can be associated with either safety, mission success, schedule, or cost domains. The assessment will define a scenario of credible events that lead to degraded performance and subsequent NASA mission impact. Ultimately, the assessment will justify the likelihood of the scenario occurrence, the consequence of the outcome, and result in a numerical risk score based on a risk matrix issued by FRED. The format and content will comply with the template and instructions provided within the data call. Typically, the FPM, the project stakeholders (including the infrastructure technical experts, facility operators, Health and Safety Plan (HASP) POCs, etc.), M&O personnel, and the Center’s Risk Coordinator are involved in developing this assessment.
e. Business Case. All Facility Projects with an AFPCE equal to or greater than $100,000 require the development of a business case conforming with the requirements of OMB Circulars A-11 and A-94. The NASA Business Case Guide for Real Property and Facilities Project Investments also identifies the nature and extent of the document. A LCCA is considered an acceptable alternative to a business case. LCCAs are to conform to the requirements of the NASA Business Case Guide for Real Property and Facilities Project Investments. For projects with an AFPCE equal to or greater than $1 million, Center CoF Program Managers shall upload the LCCA into the FRED-approved database for approval prior to the release of final design funds.
f. Compliance Matrix. For each CoF project, the FPM shall complete a Compliance Matrix (See Appendix C) and upload it into the FRED-approved database. This matrix captures all the “shall” statements in this NPR such that FPMs can use this document as a project management tool. FPMs can indicate if projects are compliant with each statement or if there are areas of intended non-compliance. Intended non-compliances require an explanation and subsequent approval from FRED.
g. Adaptive Re-Use Feasibility Report (ARFR). A concise report that evaluates the property against projected new construction needs of the Center over the next three years. The report compares the square footage, location, and layout of the newly proposed facility to determine if any of the needs can be met through refurbishment and adaption of a historic property. Analysis should include some cost estimates if appropriate (i.e., if a Center is proposing to demolish a historic office building, the ARFR should evaluate any new construction proposed and determine if the existing building could be adapted to meet those needs). An ARFR will be available to FRED upon request.
1.8.6 HQ Review and Prioritization. FRED leads the review and prioritization of Institutional CoF Facility Projects proposed for NASA’s five-year plan based on documentation provided by the Centers. This review includes an evaluation of existing capabilities to minimize or eliminate the creation of excess capacity within NASA or the private sector, e.g., construction of a ground-based test facility at a particular Center when there is adequate availability and capability to accomplish the same requirements at a different Center or in the private sector. For Facility Projects funded from other sources (e.g., Program-Direct, or local funds), FRED and the associated Mission Directorate shall coordinate the process.
1.8.7 CoF Program Approvals. The CoF Program is part of the annual appropriation request NASA submits to OMB. Refer to the Annual PPBE Phases and Steps process outlined in NPR 9420.1 Budget Formulation.
1.8.8 At Risk Projects. Projects for which FRED may withdraw or cancel funding as the result of several factors including:
a. For a design-bid-build project, the final design has not started by the end of May preceding the FY in which the project is proposed for Congressional authorization or not completed by February of the FY in which the project was authorized and appropriated.
b. The project scope, as presented to Congress, has significantly changed.
c. The construction award is not scheduled to occur by the end of the FY in which the project was authorized and appropriated.
d. A project for which all construction bids exceed the available construction budget.
1.8.8.1 The Center CoF Program Manager shall identify at risk projects to FRED as early in the FY as possible. This will enable the project funds to be rescinded and used for other Agency needs that can be executed (i.e., obligated) in accordance with the NASA and OMB obligation metrics. For Program- Direct CoF Projects, the sponsoring Mission Directorate will consider the application of at-risk project funds for other needs within their CoF Program.
1.8.9 Financial Resources for Facility Projects. The annual appropriations acts contain the principal funding authorities for projects within the CoF programs. Depending on the type of facilities project (e.g., Institutional CoF, Program-Direct CoF, Non-CoF), various types of funding are to be used for specific project phases. For Facility Projects implemented using either a Design-Bid-Build delivery approach or a Design-Build delivery approach, refer to Figure 1-4 for the funding requirements.
(*AFPCE can exceed the $1M threshold if the work conforms to NPR 8831.2 requirements.)
Figure 1-4. Facilities Project Activities and Funding, Design-Bid-Build and Design-Build
In some cases, another Federal Agency, state or local government, or a private party provides funding for facility work at a NASA Center through an Agency agreement. (See Chapter 7 of this document.) Regardless of the source of funds, approval authority will be per NPD 7330.1, Approval Authorities for Facility Projects.
1.9.1 Facility Project Approval. The authorities and responsibilities identified per NPD 7330.1 apply to all facilities projects, regardless of fund source. Each Facility Project with an AFPCE of $100,000 or more will be documented on form NF-1509 and uploaded into the FRED-approved database. At a
minimum, the Center POC (CoF Program Manager, FPM. or local authority project manager) shall submit the document and require concurrence and/or approval by the Agency POCs (CoF Program Officer or other) and the Director of FRED. Approval requirements and funding requests vary according to the facility project types and the nature of the funding.
1.9.2 Locally Funded Projects (Center- or Program-Funded). Although Centers and Programs approve and fund these projects, FRED shall review the NF-1509 to ensure compliance with NASA policies and to prevent the appearance of fragmentation. For Locally funded projects with an AFPCE less than $1 million, the forms are uploaded for FRED awareness.
1.9.2.1 For Locally Funded ROI Projects with an AFPCE equal to or greater than $1 million (i.e., projects that conform to NPR 8831.2 requirements), FRED shall approve the NF-1509 prior to obligation of a construction contract.
1.9.3 Institutional CoF Projects. Funding requests are initiated by the Center CoF Program Manager and coordinated by the Agency CoF Program Officers. Once approved, the Agency’s CoF Resource Analyst issues a signed NF-1878 via e-mail, and funding is made available to the Center within NASA’s financial management system.
1.9.3.1 Requesting FP&D Funds. Center CoF Program Managers shall request funds for Preliminary Engineering Reports (PERs), final designs, and project-specific environmental and cultural resource assessments by updating and uploading the NF-1509 into the FRED-approved database.
1.9.3.2 Requesting Construction Funds. Center CoF Program Managers shall request construction funds by updating and uploading the NF-1509 and additional documentation (as defined by FRED) into the FRED-approved database.
1.9.4 Program-Direct CoF Projects. The Center CoF Program Manager will coordinate funding for studies, PERs, and final designs with sponsoring Program POCs. Funding utilized for final designs will be reported to FRED and documented on an NF-1870 Funding Approval Document. Program funds required for construction will be transferred into the CECR Account via the PPBE process for inclusion in the President’s Budget or, when necessary, via an Operating Plan Change. Once the funds transfer is completed, Center funding requests are identical to those specified for Institutional CoF Projects.
1.9.5 Externally Funded Facilities Projects (including Tenant-funded). Funding approval and authority comes from the party providing the funding; however, NASA facility project approval requirements will be per NPD 7330.1. Centers will request project approval by submitting form NF-1509 to the Director of FRED. Refer to Chapter 7, Facility Investments by Others, for further guidance.
1.9.6 Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) and Utility Energy Services Contract (UESC) Projects. Centers request Facility Project approval prior to contract award by submitting form NF-1509 and proposal documents to FRED via the approved HQ database. For projects with an investment value less than $1 million, the forms are submitted to FRED for information only. The Energy Program Manager for Facility Projects approves projects with an investment value from $1 million up to $10 million, and the Director of FRED approves projects with investment value of $10 million or more.
1.9.7 EUL and NHPA Projects. For EUL and NHPA agreements that include a Facility Project, Centers will follow the same procedures above for Externally Funded Facilities Projects along with the
requirements indicated in NPR 8800.15, Chapter 6. EUL authority is contingent upon legislation and the identified expiration date of the legislation.
1.9.8 EUL and NHPA Net Revenue Projects. FPMs shall request facility project approval by submitting a record via the FRED-approved database. For Facility Projects with an AFPCE of $100,000 or greater the submitted record will be form NF-1509. Agency CoF Program Officers and/or the Agency Energy Program Manager will approve Facility Projects with an AFPCE up to $10 million. The Director of FRED approves projects with an AFPCE of $10 million or more. Upon final approval, the Agency Resource Analyst will document the funding requirements on form NF-1878, and issue funds to the Center via the Agency’s enterprise financial system.
1.9.9 Emergency Repair Projects. Emergency repairs are incidents where existing facilities are rendered inoperable because of a major component or system failure, an accident, or other unforeseen circumstance. In these cases, only funding appropriated for Institutional CoF may be used for the repairs. The Director of OSI can determine if the repair is more urgent than repairs, modifications, or construction of other facilities for which the CoF funds were originally appropriated. The OSI Director will subsequently author and sign a statement of determination to authorize the emergency repair.
1.9.10 Authority for Early Advertisement. FRED grants authority to advertise for design and/or construction contracts upon approval of the NF-1509 in the FRED-approved database and transfer of funding to the Center. However, FRED may grant advanced authority to advertise if necessary and appropriate prior to funding availability. Formal Authority for Early Advertisement will be provided via an e-mail from the Agency CoF Program Officer.
1.9.11 Procurement. When contracted services are required by NASA (e.g., final design services from an Architectural-Engineering firm, construction services from a commercial contractor), the contract acquisition will comply with the requirements per 48 CFR Chapter 1 (the FAR) and the NASA FAR Supplement (NFS) 48 CFR pts. 1800–1872 and Appendices A, B, and C. FPMs will collaborate with warranted Contracting Officers (COs) and designees (i.e., Contract Specialists) to fully comply with the regulations set forth in these documents.
1.9.11.1 HASP Requirements in Procurements. The FPM will work with cognizant safety officials to develop and approve safety requirements and objectives for efforts to be contracted and advise COs and CORs of specific safety concerns or issues related to contract performance.
1.9.11.2 In addition, FPMs will ensure that contracts contain safety, mission success, and risk management requirements for development, design, construction, and the operations of systems, equipment, and facilities.
1.9.12 Project Authority Adjustments. The ability to adjust an approved CoF project authority depends on the CoF Program and the dollar threshold of the project.
1.9.12.1 CoF MRC Projects (AFPCE of at least $1 million and less than $10 million). Funding realignment is the movement of funding within CoF project categories in the same FY. For the Institutional CoF Program, project categories include Renewal, Repair, Demolition, Energy, and FP&D. FRED has delegated limited authority to Center CoF, Demolition and Energy Program Managers to realign MRC project funding within their Center’s respective CoF project categories for a given appropriated year. Funding realignment cannot exceed +/– 25 percent of the originally approved AFPCE for any given MRC project as defined on the original NF-1509 unless approval to exceed the percentage is received from FRED. As an example, if a Center has four FY 2022 MRC Repair Projects, each with an AFPCE of $5M, the Center CoF Program Manager has the authority to realign the funding between the four projects such that any given MRC Repair Project budget is not increased or decreased by more than $1.25M (and the overall FY 2022 CoF Repair category for the Center remains $20M). Similar authority is granted to the Mission Directorate CoF Program Manager to realign funding with their respective Program-Direct MRC projects in a given FY.
1.9.12.2 CoF Discrete Projects (AFPCE equal to or greater than $10 million). According to NPD 7330.1, there are only two methods to adjust the approved authority for Discrete CoF Projects.
a. Upward Variation. Reprogramming funds within an account (e.g., the CECR Account) is allowed once per FY. Upward Variations enable the authority of a CoF Discrete Project to be increased or decreased by an amount less than $500,000. This funding needs to already reside within the CECR Account for the same FY that the project was authorized or an earlier FY. Upward Variations require approval by the Agency CoF Program Manager and subsequent notifications to the Mission Support Directorate (MSD) Resource & Performance Management Office and the NASA OCFO. Reprogramming of funding can occur between Discrete CoF Projects, from a Discrete CoF Project to an MRC CoF Project, or from an MRC CoF Project to a Discrete CoF Project.
b. Operating Plan Change (OPC). Either a reprogramming of funding within an account or the transfer of funding between accounts in an amount equal to or greater than $500,000. Historically, Operating Plan Change (OPC) opportunities occur only a few times per FY. OPCs require approval and coordination by the Agency CoF Program Manager, the MSD Resource and Performance Management Office, and the NASA OCFO. Formal approval must be received by Congress prior to funds reprogramming or transfer. Funding for a CoF project authority adjustment has to come from an appropriation within the same year as the project or earlier.
1.9.13 CoF Program Reporting Requirements. Center CoF Program Managers shall maintain records of their Center’s ongoing CoF Program in each FY in accordance with NPR 1441.1, NASA Records Management Program Requirements. In addition, formal Quarterly CoF Program Reports will be submitted to the FRED Strategic Planning Branch.
1.10.1 Throughout the life cycle of a facility project, the FPM will request independent reviews from the Center Institutional Safety Discipline Leads. These reviews will include any proposed facility project configuration changes that have a potential to impact project fire protection, life safety, or health systems and equipment.
1.10.2 The independent reviewer will provide written suggestions, comments, requirements, and requirement sources (e.g., NPRs, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standards, etc), to the FPM. The FPM will review all input, incorporate items of agreement, and identify any items of disagreement. The FPM will then consult with the Discipline Leads on all items of disagreement.
1.10.3 If disagreement persists, the concerned reviewer can escalate the issue for resolution to both the FPM’s and reviewer’s management. If the matter relates to Institutional Safety Authority, where disagreement involves an Institutional Safety Discipline Lead (as defined in NPR 8715.1, Section 2.6), the FPM’s supervisor shall document their decision via the request for a relief process as outlined in NPR 8715.1 Section 3.2.
1.11.1 General. Center FPMs will comply with NASA best practices regardless of the funding source. Required best practices include:
a. Implementing front-end planning developed by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) using comprehensive planning tools such as the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI), team building, and other techniques (see CII Best Practices).
b. Designing for maintainability to optimize operation and maintenance costs and effort (see CII Best Practices).
c. Installing Condition-Based Monitoring instrumentation on new, related personal property/collateral equipment provided under the implementation phase of Facility Projects when cost effective and as identified by the Center’s M&O organization. Guidance is provided in the NASA Reliability Centered Building and Equipment Acceptance Guide.
d. Commissioning installed equipment, systems, building envelope, and other building elements to ensure quality, safety, operability, reliability, and systems integration.
e. Following the Secretary of Interior’s Standard for the Treatment of Historic Properties (https://www. nps.gov/tps/standards/treatment-guidelines-2017.pdf) or Center design guidelines for projects within or adjacent to a historic property or district.
f. Maximizing reuse, recycling, and salvage and minimizing disposal when a project includes demolition (see CII Best Practices).
g. Applying constructability concepts and principles during each phase of the facility project to ensure the project execution remains practical (see CII Best Practices).
h. Using partnering tools and techniques to establish and maintain professional working relationships among project stakeholders including, but not limited to, users, contractors, and construction managers. (See Construction of Facilities: NASA Partnering Desk Reference for more specific guidance.)
i. Practicing effective configuration and change order control to minimize project cost and schedule growth.
j. Implementing the safety initiative “Making Zero Incidents a Reality” to encourage proactive safe behavior during the construction phase (see CII Best Practices).
k. Using Design-Build Institute of America’s Design-Build Manual of Practice when a design-build approach is planned.
l. When implementing a CoF Institutional Renewal project that incorporates the footprint reduction requirements specified in NPD 8820.2, Centers should attempt to match the type of space to be demolished with the type of space to be constructed (e.g., lab space for lab space, office space for office space, etc.).
1.11.2 Agency Community of Practice. Many facility project best practices are implemented by the Agency’s Engineering and Construction Innovations Committee (ECIC). The ECIC serves as a conduit for innovations from Government, industry, and academic research, introducing new ideas and new ways of doing business to NASA’s facility engineering and construction organizations. ECIC develops or assesses potential new best practices, and customizes, recommends, and after a decision to implement, champions them for NASA.
1.12.1 Guiding Principles. The Federal Government has outlined its intent to advance sustainable building principles and practices throughout its portfolio established through statutory and executive policies. These sustainable principles and practices have been incorporated into six Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings (Guiding Principles). The six principles guide agencies in designing, locating, constructing, maintaining, and operating Federal buildings in a sustainable manner that increases efficiency, optimizes performance, eliminates unnecessary use of resources, ensures the health of occupants, protects the environment, generates cost savings, and mitigates risks to assets, consistent with agency missions. In addition, these principles align with the definition of high-performance green buildings as established in Definitions, High Performance Green Buildings, 42 U.S.C. § 17061(13) and serve as guidelines for Federal agencies to assess progress towards the sustainability metrics associated with their real property assets in accordance with the statutory duties of Executive agencies (as required by Duties of Executive Agencies, 40 U.S.C. § 524).
1.12.1.1 Compliance. FPMs shall ensure that all major modification and new construction projects comply with the requirements under the Guiding Principles for Sustainable Federal Buildings, Council on Environmental Quality, as well as Catalyzing Clean Energy Industries and Jobs Through Federal Sustainability, E.O. 14057.
1.12.2 Sustainability Certifications. In addition to the Guiding Principles, FPMs managing Discrete Projects may be required to pursue a third-party sustainability certification.
1.12.2.1 New Construction and Major Modification of Existing Buildings. The FPM, in concert with the Center CoF Program Manager, the Center Sustainable Facilities Coordinator, and the RPAO shall ensure that construction of new buildings or and major modification of existing buildings is certified per the requirements of one of the following third-party certification systems (at the indicated certification level or higher):
a. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) v4 for Building Design and Construction, U. S. Green Building Council (USGBC) – for new building construction and major modifications of buildings. Projects are to strive to achieve a minimum level of LEED Silver certification. b. Green Globes® for New Construction (NC), Green Building Initiative – for new building construction and major modifications of buildings. Projects are to strive to achieve a minimum level of two Green Globes.
1.12.2.2 New Construction and Major Modification of Infrastructure. The FPM, in concert with the Center CoF Program Manager, the Center Sustainable Facilities Coordinator, and the RPAO, should consider following a third-party sustainability system for the construction of new or major modification of existing horizontal infrastructure. One such system is the Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure’s ENVISION: The Blueprint for Sustainable Infrastructure.
1.12.3 Waiver Request. If the FPM does not think compliance with the minimum USGBC LEED and/or Green Building Institute (GBI) Green Globes requirements is reasonable for a particular project, the FPM shall submit a letter to the Director of FRED requesting a waiver that explains why compliance is impractical. This waiver will include a completed initial LEED/Green Globes checklist to the NASA HQ Office of Strategic Infrastructure. Compliance with the Guiding Principles in accordance with the previously referenced E.O. is mandatory.
| TOC | ChangeHistory | Preface | Chapter1 | Chapter2 | Chapter3 | Chapter4 | Chapter5 | Chapter6 | Chapter7 | ApppendixA | AppendixB | AppendixC | AppendixD | AppendixE | AppendixF | AppendixG | AppendixH | AppendixI | AppendixJ | AppendixK | ALL | |
| | NODIS Library | Program Management(8000s) | Search | |
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.