AUGUST 4, 2011

AUDIT REPORT

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-11-001-00)

OFFICE OF AUDITS

NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: 

ASSESSMENT OF DATA USED TO MANAGE 

REAL PROPERTY ASSETS

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration
REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Final report released by:

Paul K. Martin

Inspector General

Acronyms

FERP Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division 

GAO Government Accountability Office

GSA General Services Administration

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements 

NTC NASA Technical Capabilities

OIG Office of Inspector General

O&M Operations and Maintenance 

RPMS Real Property Management System

SPF Space Power Facility 
AUGUST 4, 2011

REPORT No. IG-11-024

OVERVIEW

NASA INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: ASSESSMENT OF 

DATA USED TO MANAGE REAL PROPERTY ASSETS

The Issue

NASA’s real property holdings include approximately 5,000 buildings and structures

such as wind tunnels, laboratories, launch pads, and test stands. In total, the assets 

occupy 44 million square feet and represent more than $26.4 billion in current 

replacement value.1

 However, 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are 40 or more years old

and many are in degraded condition. Moreover, NASA is dealing with the challenge of 

its aging infrastructure at a time of large and growing budget deficits that are straining the 

resources of all Federal agencies. As discretionary funding continues to decline, NASA 

will be required to make more prudent decisions regarding its infrastructure. In addition, 

the issue of the Agency’s aging infrastructure has been identified by NASA, the Office of 

Inspector General (OIG), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Congress as 

a top challenge for nearly a decade.2

The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 directs NASA to examine its real property assets 

and, as appropriate, downsize to fit current and future missions and expected funding 

levels, “paying particular attention to identifying and removing unneeded or duplicative 

infrastructure.”

 

3

NASA uses a variety of data sources to manage its facilities. However, only one data 

source – the Real Property Management System (RPMS) – is designed to capture key 

information such as utilization, mission dependency, and condition consistently across all 

NASA Centers. The Agency uses the information in the RPMS to complete required 

reports such as annual reports of Federal real property to the General Services 

Administration (GSA). In addition, NASA uses the RPMS to integrate real property data 

with its financial system. 

In order to make these types of strategic decisions, NASA needs a clear 

understanding of each asset’s utilization, condition, and relationship to the Agency’s 

mission. 

 1 Information obtained from NASA’s Deferred Maintenance Assessment Report, October 1, 2010.

2 “NASA’s Real Property Management Plan,” November 2004; NASA OIG, “NASA’s Top Management 

and Performance Challenges,” November 2010; GAO, “High Risk Series: Federal Real Property: 

Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, but Underlying Obstacles Continue to Hamper Reform” 

(GAO-07-349, April 2007); and Public Law 111-267, “NASA Authorization Act of 2010,” October 11, 

2010.

3 Public Law 111-267, “NASA Authorization Act of 2010,” October 11, 2010.
OVERVIEW

ii REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Having accurate and consistent data on its real property assets is crucial to NASA’s 

ability to manage its large and diverse assets as well as to maintain accountable and 

transparent Agency operations. Given the real property challenges facing the Agency 

and the importance of the RPMS to helping NASA meet these challenges, the OIG 

examined the accuracy of RPMS data.

In the RPMS, NASA tracks a variety of data elements related to its facilities including

location, operating status, value, operations and maintenance costs, utilization, mission 

dependency, and condition. Because utilization, mission dependency, and condition are 

the primary factors driving NASA’s decisions on whether to maintain, repair, 

consolidate, out-lease, sell, or demolish existing assets, we focused our review on these 

three data elements. To conduct our review, we obtained data from the RPMS for the 

period October 2009 through September 2010, and we conducted inspections of 

34 facilities at three NASA Centers: Kennedy Space Center; Glenn Research Center and 

Glenn’s Plum Brook Station; and Marshall Space Flight Center. See Appendix A for 

details of our scope and methodology. Appendix B provides additional details and 

photographs of some of the facilities we visited. 

Results

We found that RPMS data relating to the three key elements of utilization, mission 

dependency, and condition to be unreliable metrics for evaluating NASA’s real property 

assets, largely because the Centers use inadequate processes to gather and update the 

information. For example, the Centers we visited had inadequate processes in place to 

accurately track the use of their facilities. Instead, they simply designated facilities as 

“Utilized” in the RPMS if they were aware that the facility was occupied or a NASA 

program reported the facility as active. However, based on our inspections, 15 of the 34 

facilities we visited were characterized as “Utilized” in the RPMS but actually were not 

in use, were no longer being used for the operations reported in the RPMS, or had been 

mothballed or demolished. For example, several of the test stands we inspected at 

Marshall were listed as “Utilized” in the RPMS even though they had not been used for 

more than 10 years. 

In addition, we found a lack of guidance and use of a ratings scale that fails to make 

meaningful distinctions between facilities limited the usefulness of the data intended to 

track the mission dependency of NASA facilities. Specifically, officials at the Centers 

we visited had widely differing opinions about what constituted a “mission.” For 

example, one official stated that he used the individual mission of the facility that he was 

rating, another official said he used the Center’s mission, and a third official stated that 

she used NASA’s overall missions. As a result, we found differences between the ratings 

applied to similar assets across the Centers. At the same time, the scale NASA uses to 

rate the criticality of facilities limits the Agency’s ability to make meaningful distinctions 

between facilities. For example, at the Centers we visited 85 percent of the facilities 

were rated as “Mission Dependent” or “Mission Critical.”
OVERVIEW

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 iii

Finally, in tracking the physical condition of its facilities, NASA relies on only cursory 

visual inspections generally performed by small teams under tight deadlines. Given the 

cursory nature of the inspections, we question the accuracy of the information in the 

RPMS regarding the physical condition of NASA facilities. For example, we found that 

the condition data recorded in the RPMS for some of the facilities at Glenn’s Plum Brook 

Station failed to reflect their true conditions.

While the RPMS is not the only information source NASA uses to manage its real 

property, it is the Agency’s only centralized database designed to track key real property 

information consistently across all Centers. Without accurate and consistent Agencywide facilities data, NASA managers do not have the information necessary to effectively 

manage the Agency’s real property inventory. This hinders their ability to make strategic 

decisions regarding NASA’s real property assets, especially decisions involving choices

between Centers. Furthermore, accurately reporting the utilization, mission dependency,

and condition of its facilities – many of which require substantial operations and 

maintenance costs – to GSA, Congress, and other parties is crucial to maintaining 

transparent and accountable Agency operations. In our judgment, additional guidance 

from Headquarters to the Centers would improve the reliability of RPMS data. 

Moreover, until such steps are taken, it is important that NASA managers understand the 

limitations of RPMS data, manage those limitations accordingly, and disclose those 

limitations when using the data to support reports to NASA management, Congress, or 

other parties.

Management Action

Given NASA’s ongoing real property challenges and the importance of having reliable 

Agency-wide data to address these challenges, we recommended that the Associate 

Administrator for the Mission Support Directorate take a series of actions to help 

improve the accuracy of RPMS data. Our recommendations included establishing

processes that accurately capture the utilization rates of facilities in the RPMS; revising

NASA policy to include guidance for conducting mission dependency reviews, including 

developing a consistent definition of mission; and ensuring contractors are provided 

sufficient detail and direction for conducting assessments of the physical condition of 

NASA’s facilities. 

In response to a draft of this report, the Associate Administrator concurred with our 

recommendation to develop guidance for conducting mission dependency reviews and 

partially concurred with our recommendations to establish guidance and processes for 

capturing utilization rates and ensuring that contractors are provided with sufficient detail 

and direction for conducting facility condition assessments. He stated that while he 

planned to develop additional guidance in both areas, implementing those actions

“may be constrained by limited resources – both people and funding.” The Associate 

Administrator also provided technical comments on the draft, and we made revisions to

the report where appropriate. 
OVERVIEW

iv REPORT NO. IG-11-024

We consider the Associate Administrator’s comments to be responsive to our 

recommendations and will close the recommendations upon completion and verification 

of the proposed corrective actions. Establishment of further guidance and processes for 

Centers to better understand and accurately capture the utilization, mission dependency, 

and condition of NASA’s facilities are positive steps that will provide greater insights

when managing the Agency’s real property holdings. While we recognize that 

implementing these actions may be difficult in a time of reduced resources, we believe 

that any costs associated with improving the data will ultimately lead to greater cost 

savings in the future by enabling the Agency to more effectively manage its real property 

holdings.
AUGUST 4, 2011

REPORT NO. IG-11-024

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background _________________________________________ 1

Objectives __________________________________________ 6

RESULTS

Key Data in NASA’s Real Property Management System Is

Unreliable ________________________________________ 7

APPENDIX A

Scope and Methodology_______________________________ 17

Review of Internal Controls ____________________________ 18

Prior Coverage ______________________________________ 18

APPENDIX B

Results of Facility Inspections __________________________ 19

APPENDIX C

Management Comments ______________________________ 34

APPENDIX D

Report Distribution___________________________________ 37

AUGUST 4, 2011

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 1

INTRODUCTION

Background

NASA is the ninth largest Federal Government property holder, with real property 

holdings of more than 100,000 acres and approximately 5,000 buildings and other 

structures encompassing more than 44 million square feet. NASA’s property holdings 

are located throughout the world and include commercial office buildings, warehouses, 

test stands, laboratories, wind tunnels, launch pads, antenna arrays, airfields, roads, and 

utilities. In total, the assets represent more than $26.4 billion in current replacement 

value.4

The Agency’s aging infrastructure has been identified by NASA, the Office of Inspector 

General (OIG), the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and Congress as a top 

challenge for the Agency for nearly a decade.

 However, 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are 40 or more years old and many are 

in need of repair and refurbishment. At the same time, the Agency is undergoing 

considerable changes in mission focus, with the Space Shuttle Program ending after 39 

years. Accordingly, NASA will have to make some difficult decisions to evolve toward 

the most efficient facility structure for its future. To address these challenges, NASA will 

require accurate and reliable data about its facilities.

5

NASA uses a variety of information sources to manage its facilities at both the 

Headquarters and Center levels. For example, the three Centers we visited – Kennedy

Space Center, Marshall Space Flight Center, and Glenn Research Center – use databases 

to track the utilization of administrative office space for the purposes of managing and 

assigning office space to Center personnel. In addition, the Mission Support Directorate 

recently began development of the NASA Technical Capabilities (NTC) database to help 

track facility capabilities and workforce requirements.

In the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, 

Congress directed the Agency to complete an Institutional Requirements Study 

examining its assets and identifying a strategy for moving forward. The Study is due to 

Congress by October 2011. 

6

 4 Information obtained from NASA’s Deferred Maintenance Assessment Report, October 1, 2010.

 While these databases provide or 

are expected to provide useful information to help the Centers manage their real property,

currently NASA has only one system designed to capture key real property 

5 “NASA’s Real Property Management Plan,” November 2004; NASA OIG, “NASA’s Top Management 

and Performance Challenges,” November 2010; GAO, “High Risk Series: Federal Real Property: 

Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, but Underlying Obstacles Continue to Hamper Reform” 

(GAO-07-349, April 2007); and Public Law 111-267, “NASA Authorization Act of 2010,” October 11, 

2010.

6 The NTC database will only provide information on facilities that support certain technical capabilities, 

while the Real Property Management System (RPMS) provides key information on all NASA facilities. 

NASA officials expect NTC to be fully operable in 2012. 
INTRODUCTION

2 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

information including utilization, mission dependency, and condition consistently across 

all NASA Centers – the Real Property Management System (RPMS). 

Real Property Management System. NASA established the RPMS in October 2010 to 

integrate the Agency’s disparate real property data systems with its financial systems.7

NASA captures key information on both administrative and non-administrative facilities 

in the RPMS. Administrative facilities generally comprise office space while nonadministrative facilities include processing facilities, wind tunnels, test stands, 

laboratories, and warehouses.

 

The RPMS is an Agency-wide electronic data system for compiling, analyzing, and 

reporting on real property assets. NASA maintains real property data in the RPMS for 

assets with an acquisition cost of at least $5,000 that NASA owns, leases, or controls. 

The RPMS contains data elements on each asset, describing characteristics such as 

location, operating status, value, operations and maintenance (O&M) costs, utilization, 

mission dependency, and condition. The data also provides NASA decision makers with 

information regarding the size, type, sustainability, and efficiency of the Agency’s 

facilities. In addition, the Agency uses the database to fulfill Federal reporting 

requirements, such as the annual requirement to report Federal real property to the 

General Services Administration (GSA) for inclusion in the Federal Real Property 

Profile. NASA also uses the RPMS to integrate real property data with its financial 

system.

8

 7 Prior to this integration, NASA maintained the Agency’s real property data in its Real Property Inventory 

system. 

As shown in Figure 1, non-administrative facilities 

account for more than half of all NASA facilities. (Figure 1 also shows nonadministrative facilities as a percentage of total facilities at each NASA Center.) 

8 For our review, we categorized NASA’s facilities, including maintenance and production, operational, 

research development and testing, and supply, as “non-administrative facilities.” 
INTRODUCTION

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 3

Figure 1. NASA’s Non-Administrative Facilities as of September 2010

 

Essential Real Property Data Tracked within the RPMS. According to the NASA 

Real Property Asset Management Plan, NASA Centers, Mission Directorates, and the 

Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division (FERP) are to consider specific factors 

when determining whether to maintain, repair, consolidate, out-lease, sell, or demolish 

existing assets.9

 9 The NASA Real Property Asset Management Plan serves as NASA’s guide for promoting the efficient 

and economical use of the Agency’s real property holdings in accordance with Executive Order 13327 

and the Federal Real Property Council.

 These factors are measured and tracked in the RPMS and include 

(1) utilization rate, (2) mission dependency status, and (3) physical condition (see 

Figure 2). For example, NASA managers may consider demolishing an asset that is not 

“Mission Dependent” and no longer in good physical condition. Conversely, if the asset 

is “Not Mission Dependent” but is in good condition, NASA may consider its lease or 

sale. Because of their importance to decision makers, we focused our review on the

accuracy of these data elements in the RPMS database. Following is a detailed 

explanation of each element.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

49%

43%

72%

60%

63%

56%

60%

58%

53%

55%

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

4,905

2,838

(58%)

Number of Facilities

Non-Administrative 

Facilities
INTRODUCTION

4 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure 2. NASA Real Property Decision Process for Existing Assets

Source: NASA Real Property Asset Management Plan, January 2008

Utilization. Facilities may be designated in the RPMS as (1) Overutilized, (2) Utilized, 

(3) Underutilized, or (4) Not Utilized. NASA regulations require Centers to identify 

utilization rates for all real property assets annually. To determine utilization, officials 

review each asset to determine a percentage of space used in comparison with the total 

space available or a usage level based on a comparison with the number of days the 

facility is available. Based on a comparison of each asset’s usage with NASA and 

Federal thresholds, Center officials record the corresponding utilization rate in the 

RPMS.10 NASA guidance requires facility usage rates to exceed 50 percent.11

Mission Dependency. Mission dependency identifies the relative importance of real 

property assets in relation to NASA’s mission. NASA collaborated with the Navy and 

Coast Guard to develop a method for measuring mission dependency in 2001 and began 

collecting data in 2004. Mission dependency data is intended to help NASA managers 

 10 Federal thresholds and guidance are provided by GSA’s “2010 Guidance for Real Property Inventory 

Reporting,” October 25, 2010. NASA’s guidance is provided by NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 

8800.15B, “Real Estate Management Program,” June 21, 2010.

11 NASA also uses the data element “Facility Status” to track utilization in the RPMS. Specifically, 

NPR 8800.15B states that the space utilization of an “Active” facility is normally at least 50 percent or 

the usage level exceeds 50 percent of the number of days that it is available. An active facility is a 

facility that is being used by a current or future program or has an institutional requirement. We 

reviewed facilities designated as “Active” for our audit. 
INTRODUCTION

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 5

better manage risks to programs and guide investment and divestiture decisions. NASA 

Centers are required to assess and update mission dependency scores for all assets every 

3 years. Asset assessments are based on the responses to two questions related to the 

asset’s impact on mission:

• How long could the functions supported by your infrastructure be stopped without 

adverse impact to the mission? 

• If your facility was not functional, could you continue performing your mission 

by using another facility or by setting up temporary facilities?

Each asset is given a mission dependency score on a scale of 1 to 100. Assets with 

mission dependency scores of 71 to 100 are considered “Mission Critical,” 10 to 70 are 

“Mission Dependent,” and 0 to 9 are “Not Mission Dependent.” “Mission Critical”

assets are those assets that would compromise the Agency’s mission if unavailable.

Assets that are “Not Mission Dependent” would have no effect on the Agency’s mission 

if unavailable. “Mission Dependent” assets are those assets that are neither “Mission 

Critical” nor “Not Mission Dependent.” 

Condition Data. Condition data provide information on the physical condition of the 

Agency’s real property assets at a specific point in time. To measure the condition of 

each asset, NASA hires contractors to perform annual condition assessment surveys of all 

facilities. For each asset, the contractor rates nine major systems: structure; exterior;

roof; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning; electrical; plumbing; conveyance systems 

(e.g., elevators); interior; and equipment. NASA calculates a condition index score using 

a five-point scale for each asset using the contractor-provided ratings. According to the 

NASA Real Property Asset Management Plan, assets rated as a five are newer facilities 

with little or no repairs needed, assets rated lower than three are considered in poor 

condition, and any asset rated as a one should be condemned. 

Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division. FERP, a division of the Mission 

Support Directorate’s Office of Strategic Infrastructure, serves as the principal point of 

contact for NASA’s real property activities and policy. NASA Centers control the 

majority of the Agency’s real property and are responsible for managing their assets with 

guidance and oversight from FERP. NASA Centers’ Real Property Accountable Officers 

upload, maintain, and establish controls to ensure the accuracy of RPMS data for their

respective Centers. Major asset management decisions are vetted through the Agency’s 

Operations Management Council that serves as NASA’s senior decision-making body for 

reviewing and approving capital investments.
INTRODUCTION

6 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Objectives

Our objective was to determine the accuracy of the information in the RPMS regarding 

facility utilization, mission dependency, and condition. We also reviewed internal 

controls as they relate to the overall objective. See Appendix A for details of the audit’s 

scope and methodology, our review of internal controls, and a list of prior coverage. See 

Appendix B for additional details and photographs of some of the facilities we inspected. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 7

KEY DATA IN NASA’S REAL PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS UNRELIABLE

We found that RPMS data relating to the three key elements of utilization, mission 

dependency, and condition to be unreliable metrics for evaluating NASA’s real 

property assets, largely because the Centers use inadequate processes to gather and 

update the information. Specifically, the Centers did not accurately record utilization 

data in the RPMS; mission dependency data lacked uniformity across Centers

because of insufficient guidance about how to define “mission”; the Agency’s 

method for scoring mission dependency fails to prioritize among facilities; and 

condition ratings of the Agency’s facilities were based on cursory inspections,

raising concerns about their accuracy. Without accurate facilities data, NASA 

managers do not have reliable information to manage the Agency’s real property 

inventory, which hinders their ability to make objective Agency-wide decisions 

regarding NASA’s real property assets.

Utilization of Facilities Not Accurately Recorded in the RPMS

The three Centers we visited had inadequate processes in place to record accurately the 

utilization rates of their facilities in the RPMS and instead designated facilities as 

“Utilized” in the database regardless of their actual usage level.

12 As a result, the 

utilization data did not reflect actual conditions for 15 of the 34 facilities we inspected. 

Although characterized as “Utilized” in the database, these 15 facilities were not in use, 

no longer performed the operations reported in the RPMS, or had been mothballed or 

demolished.

13

 12 We inspected 34 non-administrative facilities at three NASA Centers: 10 at Kennedy Space Center in 

Florida; 8 at Glenn Research Center in Cleveland, Ohio; 5 at Glenn’s Plum Brook Station in Sandusky, 

Ohio; and 11 at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. NASA guidance requires that 

facility usage rates exceed 50 percent to be considered “Utilized.”

 For example, Plum Brook’s Heat Transfer Facility Test Building

(Figure 3) was identified in the RPMS as “Utilized” even though it had been placed in 

mothball status in 2008.

13 Mothballed facilities are facilities that have been taken out of use with appropriate maintenance measures 

to prevent deterioration of essential systems. 
RESULTS

8 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure 3. Heat Transfer Facility Test Building at 

Plum Brook

Figure 4. Advanced Engine Test Facility

at Marshall

Source: Glenn’s Plum Brook Station Intranet Building 

List

Source: Marshall’s Facilities Geographical 

Information System

Similarly, several of the test stands we inspected at Marshall were listed as “Utilized” in 

the RPMS even though they had not been used for more than 10 years (Figure 4 shows

one of the test stands we inspected). In addition, a test facility at Glenn was listed as 

“Utilized,” but we found that it was not currently in use and in fact had not performed the 

operations reported in the RPMS for more than 10 years. In another example, a

warehouse at Plum Brook listed as “Utilized” had been demolished. (See Table 1 for the 

results of our review, and Appendix B for other photographs and additional details of 

these facilities.) 

Table 1. Kennedy, Glenn, and Marshall Utilization Rates Not Accurately Characterized in RPMS

Center Facility Description

Square 

Feet Value

O&M 

Costs*

RPMS

Rate

OIG 

Assessment

Kennedy

Boresight 

Control 

Building

Communications 

test facility 1,200 $ 1,489,985 $ 44,080 Utilized Not Utilized

Kennedy PHSF

Hazardous 

payload 

processing 

facility

18,813 19,885,907 419,517 Utilized Not 

Utilized

Kennedy RTG

Nuclear 

Processing 

Facility

3,788 1,847,669 51,843 Utilized Not 

Utilized

* O&M costs refer to those costs that NASA incurs on an annual basis to operate and maintain a particular facility.
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 9

Table 1. Utilization Rates Not Accurately Characterized in RPMS (continued)

Center Facility Description

Square 

Feet Value

O&M 

Costs*

RPMS 

Rate

OIG 

Assessment

Glenn

B Control 

and Data 

Building

Control center 11,508 $ 4,919,098 $ 33,426 Utilized Not Utilized

Glenn HTF Test 

Building

Propulsion 

systems testing 6,082 38,464,125 31,851 Utilized Not Utilized

Glenn

PSL Engine 

Test 

Building

Propulsion 

systems testing 45,192 45,697,087 264,676 Utilized Not Utilized

Glenn

Research 

Combustion 

Lab

Small propulsion 

systems testing 17,092 9,877,158 132,850 Utilized Not Utilized

Glenn SPF Test 

Building

Space simulation 

testing 139,358 187,195,405 1,918,589 Utilized Not Utilized

Glenn

Vertical Lift 

Engine Test 

Facility

Fuel cell testing N/A 3,014,580 1,286 Utilized Different 

Function

Glenn Warehouse 

(9205) Storage 10,950 1,483,582 0 Utilized Demolished

Marshall

Advanced 

Engine Test 

Facility 

Test stand N/A 120,497,537 273,439 Utilized Not Utilized

Marshall

Propulsion 

& Structural 

Test Facility

Test stand N/A 32,707,706 167,905 Utilized Not Utilized

Marshall

Structural 

Dynamic 

Test Facility

Test stand N/A 60,812,961 118,596 Utilized Not Utilized

Marshall Test Facility 

300 Test stand N/A 8,617,134 51,099 Utilized Not Utilized

Marshall Test Facility 

500 Test stand N/A 12,092,502 35,763 Utilized Not Utilized

* O&M costs refer to those costs that NASA incurs on an annual basis to operate and maintain a particular facility.

In our judgment, the problems with the utilization data in the RPMS were the result of 

inadequate processes used by the Centers to track the data in accordance with NASA 

policy. Specifically, Real Property officials from the three Centers we visited told us that 

they did not have processes in place to calculate usage rates or conduct annual 

inspections to ensure data accuracy.

14 Rather, they simply designated facilities as 

“Utilized” if they were aware that the facilities were occupied or a NASA program

reported the facilities as active. However, according to NASA policy, Centers should 

perform annual utilization reviews of all real property under their cognizance.15

 14 The three Centers we visited – Kennedy, Marshall, and Glenn – used Center-level databases to track the 

utilization of administrative office space for the purposes of managing and assigning office space to 

Center personnel. While these systems enabled the Centers to track utilization data on their 

administrative facilities, this data was not used to calculate utilization rates in the RPMS. 

 During 

these reviews, Center officials are supposed to identify a usage rate based on either the 

15 NPR 8800.15B, “Real Estate Management Program,” June 21, 2010.
RESULTS

10 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

percentage of space in use compared with the total space available, or based on the 

number of days the facility is available compared with the number of days it is used. 

Based on a comparison of each facility’s usage percentage with Federal thresholds, 

Center officials should report a corresponding utilization rate in the RPMS. To be 

considered “Utilized,” a facility’s usage rate must exceed 50 percent.16

FERP officials contend that the utilization criteria as outlined in NASA policy is not 

intended to define utilization rates for every type of facility. They argue that determining 

utilization rates for non-administrative facilities based on annual usage as outlined in 

current NASA policy is problematic because the data do not account for the likelihood of 

future use.

 

17

Without accurate utilization data, NASA is unable to accurately access the costs 

associated with maintaining under- or non-utilized facilities. During our review, we 

found 15 facilities with annual O&M costs of approximately $3.5 million that NASA was 

not fully utilizing. For example, the Space Power Facility (SPF) Test Building at Plum 

Brook Station (Figure 5), which has the capability to simulate the space environment, is 

reported in the RPMS as “Utilized.” However, the facility – which requires nearly 

$2 million in annual O&M costs – has not been used since 2009. Similarly, several test 

stands at Marshall that require between $35,763 and $273,439 in annual O&M costs but

have not been used by NASA for more than 10 years are reported in the RPMS as 

“Utilized.” 

 As such, they consider non-administrative facilities with critical capabilities 

as “Utilized” even if they are only in use for minimal portions of a year. We

acknowledge that many of NASA’s non-administrative facilities have highly specialized 

capabilities that would be expensive to replace and agree that the Agency should consider 

the likelihood of future use as well as replacement cost in making decisions regarding 

non-administrative facilities. Nevertheless, in our judgment accurately tracking and 

reporting annual utilization rates is a fundamental aspect of real property management 

and transparent Government operations. Without this information, NASA is missing key 

data necessary to inform its property management decisions. 

 16 NASA also uses the data element “Facility Status” to track utilization in the RPMS. Specifically, 

NPR 8800.15B states that the space utilization of an “Active” facility is normally at least 50 percent or 

the usage level exceeds 50 percent of the number of days that it is available. An active facility is a 

facility that is being used by a current or future program or has an institutional requirement. We 

reviewed facilities designated as “Active” for our audit. Our review found that in the cases where 

facilities were inaccurately rated as “Utilized” in the RPMS, they were also inaccurately designated as “Active.” As such, we do not make a distinction between “Active” and “Utilized” in the report.

17 For our review, we categorized NASA’s facilities, including maintenance and production, operational, 

research development and testing, and supply, as “non-administrative facilities.” 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 11

Figure 5. SPF Test Building

Source: Glenn’s Plum Brook Station Intranet Building List

Lack of Guidance and Imprecise Rating Scale Limit the Usefulness 

of Mission Dependency Data 

Mission dependency data are designed to identify the relative importance of facilities in 

terms of their role in accomplishing the Agency’s mission. However, at the three Centers 

we visited we found weaknesses in the methods used to determine mission dependency 

that limit the usefulness of the data. First, we found no uniformity in the definition of 

“mission” among the Centers when interpreting a facility’s mission dependency score. 

For example, one official stated that he used the individual mission of the facility that he 

was rating, another official stated that he used the Center’s mission, while a third official 

stated that she based her assessment on NASA’s overall missions. As a result, we found 

differences between the ratings applied to similar assets across the three Centers. For 

example, on a scale of 1 to 100, a Child Development Center at Kennedy was rated a 24, 

25 at Marshall, and 48 at Glenn.

18

Center officials said that NASA’s FERP did not provide sufficient guidance on how 

Centers should measure and define mission when measuring mission dependency. Center 

officials explained that FERP provided only limited guidance, and consequently the 

officials responsible for conducting the reviews developed varying interpretations of what 

constituted a mission. FERP officials acknowledged the problem and said that they also 

found inconsistent mission dependency data across the Agency as a result of the varying 

interpretations of the term “mission.” FERP officials explained that they were currently 

 18 Assets with mission dependency scores of 71 to 100 are considered “Mission Critical,” 10 to 70 are 

“Mission Dependent,” and 0 to 9 are “Not Mission Dependent.” 
RESULTS

12 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

refining the definition of mission so that it better aligns with NASA’s strategic missions 

and programs. In addition, they agree that additional guidance to the Centers would 

improve the consistency of RPMS data. 

A second weakness of RPMS mission dependency data is that the scale NASA uses to 

rate the criticality of facilities is imprecise and limits meaningful prioritization among 

facilities. NASA’s scale considers facilities with mission dependency ratings of 71 to 

100 as “Mission Critical” and 10 to 70 as “Mission Dependent.” Only those facilities 

rated from 0 to 9 are considered “Not Mission Dependent.” Overall, at the three Centers 

we visited, 15 percent of the facilities received a 0–9 rating and therefore are 

characterized as “Not Mission Dependent.” We found that under NASA’s rating system,

even facilities with relatively low ratings are designated as “Mission Dependent” in the 

RPMS. FERP officials said that an independent assessment conducted by the Navy in 

2006 noted that the scale to assess a facility as “Not Mission Dependent” should more 

appropriately range from 0 to 20.19

While many NASA facilities clearly are important to the Agency’s mission, scoring more 

than 85 percent as “Mission Dependent” or “Mission Critical” devalues the data element

as a tool to evaluate the extent to which NASA’s facilities within and across Centers are 

linked to specific NASA missions. Furthermore, by using a rating system with such a 

broad range, NASA is furthering the perception that the Agency is dependent on nearly 

all of its facilities and would suffer adverse impacts to its overall mission if the facilities 

were unavailable. Given the shortcomings in the current rating system, it is difficult to 

assess which of NASA’s facilities across the Agency are truly “Mission Dependent.” 

This in turn hampers NASA’s ability to make appropriate strategic decisions regarding 

the disposition of its real property assets.

 Using this scale, 23 percent, or an additional 153 

facilities at the three Centers we visited, would be considered “Not Mission Dependent.” 

This included a variety of facilities including test facilities, laboratories, and warehouses. 

Accuracy of Facility Condition Ratings Questionable Due to

Cursory Inspections

NASA relies on cursory inspections to assess the physical condition of its facilities. 

According to NASA’s Deferred Maintenance Assessment Report, the condition of a 

facility should be based on inspections of nine components such as structural integrity 

and heating and electrical systems.

20 However, the assessments generally consist of 

cursory visual inspections performed by a few people over a very brief period. For 

example, to determine the condition ratings of Kennedy’s 1,154 facilities for fiscal year 

2010, a contractor employed five personnel for 2 weeks to perform all the inspections.21

 19 The Navy, Coast Guard, and NASA collaborated to develop the Mission Dependency Index in 2001.

 

20 For each asset, the contractor rates the asset’s structure, exterior, roof, heating ventilation and air 

conditioning, electric, plumbing, conveyance systems (e.g., elevators), interior, and equipment.

21 To assess Glenn and Plum Brook’s 405 facilities, a contractor employed four personnel for 5 days. At 

Marshall, a contractor employed four personnel for 20 hours total to assess 284 facilities.
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 13

In addition, according to Center officials, some of the assessments were limited to 

drive-by visual inspections. Given the cursory nature of the inspections, we question the 

accuracy of the condition data recorded in the RPMS. Inaccurate condition data limits 

NASA’s ability to make appropriate decisions on whether to keep and maintain particular 

facilities. 

As one example, we found that the condition data recorded in the RPMS for some of the 

facilities at Glenn’s Plum Brook Station failed to reflect their true condition. Some 

facilities showed excessive wear and tear that would require significant repairs, yet 

NASA rated them in the RPMS as being in “Fair” to “Good” condition. Specifically, 

NASA rated the condition of a warehouse at Plum Brook as “Fair” even though the 

facility is 67 years old and had clear signs of structural degradation including portions of 

the roof caving in (see Figure 6).

22

Figure 6. Warehouse at Plum Brook Station Rated in “Fair” Condition

 We also noted several other warehouses at Plum 

Brook that were in similarly deteriorating condition, yet were rated as being in “Good”

condition in the RPMS. For example, the 99 Igloos – World War II ammunition depots 

converted by Plum Brook into storage facilities – were all rated as a four on the five-point 

condition index scale indicating that they are in “Good” condition. However, the 

structures are 68 years old and most are in degraded condition (see Figure 7). According 

to the facility manager, most have also experienced problems with moisture and rodent 

infestations. 

Source: NASA OIG photograph (March 2011)

 22 Following our review, Glenn officials scheduled the warehouse for demolish in FY 2014.
RESULTS

14 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure 7. Igloos at Plum Brook Station Rated in “Good” Condition

Source: Glenn photographs (July 2010)

Conclusion

Given the extent and age of NASA’s facilities, and particularly in this time of large and 

growing national budget deficits, it is imperative that NASA managers have reliable data 

with which to manage the Agency’s real property assets. The RPMS is currently the only 

database designed to capture real property information across the entire Agency. Without 

accurate and consistent Agency-wide facilities data, NASA managers are hindered in

their ability to make strategic decisions regarding NASA’s real property assets, especially 

decisions involving trade-offs between facilities at different Centers. In addition, 

accurately reporting the utilization, mission dependency, and condition of its facilities –

many of which require substantial O&M costs – to GSA, Congress, and other parties is 

crucial to maintaining transparent and accountable Agency operations. For these reasons, 

we encourage NASA to improve the accuracy of its real property data. In our judgment, 

additional guidance from FERP to the Centers would help improve the reliability of the 

data. 

Until steps are taken to improve the accuracy of the data, it is important that NASA 

managers understand, manage, and disclose the limitations of the RPMS database when 

using the data to support reports to Congress and the public.
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 15

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Management’s Response

Given NASA’s ongoing real property challenges and the importance of having reliable 

Agency-wide data to address these challenges, we recommended that the Associate 

Administrator for the Mission Support Directorate direct the Facilities Engineering and Real

Property Division to take the following actions to help improve the accuracy of RPMS data.

Recommendation 1. Establish processes for the Centers that accurately capture the 

utilization rates of facilities in the RPMS. These processes should include, at a minimum, 

the use of quantitative methods to calculate utilization rates and annual inspections of 

facilities.

Management’s Response. The Associate Administrator for the Mission Support 

Directorate partially concurred with our recommendation, stating that he will establish 

further guidance and processes for Centers to better understand utilization and accurately 

capture the utilization rates of NASA’s facilities. However, he stated that the 

implementation of any new processes “may be problematic due to limited resources –

both people and funding.” In addition, he stated that the utilization of highly technical 

facilities, such as test stands and wind tunnels, is difficult to capture because of the 

intermittent use and requirements by programs and missions. Nonetheless, he noted that 

NASA is currently awaiting guidance from the Office of Management and Budget and 

GSA, as well as reviewing other metrics, for better determining the utilization of 

technical facilities.

Evaluation of Management’s Response. We consider management’s comments 

responsive and will close the recommendation upon completion and verification of the 

proposed corrective actions. In our judgment, development of further guidance for the 

Centers is a positive step toward improving the accuracy of utilization data. While we 

recognize that implementing new processes may be difficult because of reduced 

resources, the costs of developing further guidance should be minor. In addition, we 

believe that any costs associated with improving the data will ultimately lead to greater 

cost savings in the future by enabling the Agency to more effectively manage its real 

property holdings.

Recommendation 2. Revise NASA policy to include guidance for conducting mission 

dependency reviews, including developing a consistent definition of the mission reviewers 

should consider when performing the reviews.

Management’s Response. The Associate Administrator concurred, stating that he will 

revise NASA policy to include guidance for conducting mission dependency reviews.

Evaluation of Management’s Response. Management’s proposed actions are 

responsive; therefore, the recommendation is resolved and will be closed upon 

verification and completion of the proposed corrective actions. 
RESULTS

16 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Recommendation 3. Reassess and revise, as appropriate, contracts for condition 

assessments to provide contractors sufficient detail and direction to ensure that the Agency 

is provided comprehensive assessments of the physical condition of its facilities.

Management’s Response. The Associate Administrator partially concurred with our 

recommendation, stating that he will reassess and revise, as appropriate, contracts for 

condition assessments. However, he stated that implementing additional contract 

requirements will be difficult due to ongoing cuts to NASA’s budget. He also noted that 

although errors were found in the data relating to the contractors’ assessments of the 

condition of Agency assets, these assessments are the most cost-effective method of 

providing NASA with the most relevant information without incurring excessive contract 

costs.

Evaluation of Management’s Response. We consider management’s comments 

responsive and will close the recommendation upon completion and verification of the 

proposed corrective actions. In our judgment, reassessing and revising the contracts for 

condition assessments are positive steps toward improving the quality of condition data. 

While we recognize that implementing these actions may be difficult due to reduced 

resources, we believe that any costs associated with improving the data will ultimately 

lead to greater cost savings in the future by enabling the Agency to more effectively 

manage its real property holdings.
APPENDIXES

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 17

APPENDIX A

Scope and Methodology

We performed this audit from October 2010 through July 2011 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan 

and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives. Our announced objectives included determining whether NASA’s 

real property assets were supported by verifiable program and mission requirements. 

However, we did not pursue that objective because of the relevance of our findings 

concerning RPMS data.

We reviewed Federal, NASA, and Center policies and regulations to determine the 

requirements and criteria for assessing real property assets’ utilization, mission 

dependency, and condition. The documents we reviewed included Executive Order 

13327, February 6, 2004; “Federal Real Property Asset Management,” March 2007; the 

Federal Real Property Council’s “2010 Guidance for Real Property Inventory Reporting,” 

October 25, 2010; NPR 8800.15B, “Real Estate Management Program,” June 21, 2010; 

NASA Policy Directive 8800.14D, “Policy for Real Estate Management (Revalidated, 

October 14, 2009)”; and various Center regulations and plans, such as Kennedy NPR

8830.1, “Facilities Asset Management Procedural Requirements,” March 28, 2011, and 

“NASA’s Real Property Management Plan,” November 2004. 

We also interviewed FERP and Center officials to determine how data contained in the 

RPMS on utilization, mission dependency, and condition were assessed, reported, and 

verified. We judgmentally selected facilities at Kennedy, Glenn, and Marshall for 

detailed review. We chose those three Centers because each Center represented one of 

NASA’s primary mission themes: Science and Aeronautics, Space Operations, and 

Mission Support. We performed limited validation testing for utilization and mission 

dependency data elements recorded for the facilities we reviewed. Our validation testing 

for RPMS utilization rates included visually inspecting facilities, reviewing facility logs, 

and discussions with facility managers. To validate mission dependency data, we 

reviewed the RPMS for anomalies in mission criticality ratings and held discussions with 

each Center’s mission dependency expert. To assess the validity of RPMS condition 

data, we conducted visual inspections of facilities’ external structure. 
APPENDIX A

18 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Computer-Processed Data

This report provides our assessment of the data contained in the RPMS, a NASA 

Enterprise System maintained in SAP. We obtained data for the period October 2009 

through September 2010 from the RPMS, and we focused on the utilization, mission 

dependency, and condition data elements. As discussed in this report, we found that the 

data was not reliable. Although the number of facilities at the three Centers we visited 

also came from the RPMS, the accuracy of that data would not affect our findings or 

conclusions.

Review of Internal Controls

We reviewed and evaluated the internal controls associated with collecting and reporting 

data for inclusion in the RPMS. As discussed in this report, the policies and procedures 

governing data collection and reporting were not sufficient to ensure the reliability and 

validity of that data. Our recommendations, if implemented, should correct the identified 

weaknesses.

Prior Coverage

During the last 5 years, the NASA OIG, the GAO, and the National Research Council 

have issued three reports of particular relevance to the subject of this report. Unrestricted 

reports can be accessed over the Internet at http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11

(NASA OIG), http://www.gao.gov (GAO), and http://www.nap.edu/ (National Research 

Council). 

NASA Office of Inspector General

“Audit of NASA’s Facilities Maintenance” (IG-11-015, March 2, 2011)

Government Accountability Office

“Federal Real Property: An Update on High Risk Issues” (GAO-09-801T, July 15, 2009)

National Research Council

“Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research” 

(2010)
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 19

RESULTS OF FACILITY 

INSPECTIONS

For our review, we inspected 34 non-administrative facilities at three NASA Centers: 

Kennedy Space Center in Florida; Glenn Research Center in Cleveland and Glenn’s Plum 

Brook Station in Sandusky, Ohio; and Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, 

Alabama. During these inspections, we found 15 facilities that NASA had inaccurately 

characterized as “Utilized” in the RPMS. Despite being characterized as “Utilized” in the 

database, the facilities were not in use, no longer performed the same operations, had 

been mothballed, or had been demolished. NASA guidance requires facility usage rates 

to exceed 50 percent for the facility to be considered “Utilized.” Below we describe each 

facility and assess its use. 

Figure B-1. Payload Hazardous Services Facility (PHSF)

Center: Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Date Built: 1986

Description: The PHSF is a payload processing facility used to process both 

hazardous and nonhazardous payloads. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed the PHSF as “Utilized” in the RPMS for the 2010 

reporting period. However, we determined that NASA did not use 

the facility in 2010. Rather, it was used last in July 2009 to process

parts for the Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission. NASA

plans to use the facility to process the Mars Science Laboratory in 

2011.
APPENDIX B

20 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure B-2. Radioisotopes Thermoelectric Generator (RTG)

Center Location: Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Date Built: 1964

Description: The RTG is a processing facility for loading radioisotopes used 

to power deep space missions. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed the RTG as “Utilized” in the RPMS for 2010. 

However, we determined that NASA did not use the facility in 

2010, and its last significant use was to process the New 

Horizons spacecraft in 2005. NASA plans to use the facility 

to process the Mars Science Laboratory in 2011.
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 21

Figure B-3. Boresight Control Building

Center Location: Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Date Built: 1964

Description: The Boresight Control Building is a telemetry, tracking, and 

command support facility for testing the Space Shuttle’s antennas. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed the Boresight Control Building as “Utilized” in the 

RPMS for 2010. However, we determined that NASA did not use 

the facility in 2010, and its last significant use was not known. 

NASA did not have any planned future uses.
APPENDIX B

22 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure B-4. B Control and Data Building

Center Location: Plum Brook Station, OH

Date Built: 1960

Description: The B Control and Data Building is the control and data collection 

center for NASA’s B-2 Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility, 

which tests full-scale upper-stage vehicles and rocket engines 

under simulated high-altitude conditions. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed the B Control and Data building as “Utilized” in the 

RPMS for 2010. Although the facility is currently undergoing 

modifications, we determined that NASA did not use the facility in 

2010, and it was last used to test tracer packages for a university 

between 2005 and 2006. NASA plans to use the facility for future 

J2X engine tests.
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 23

Figure B-5. Heat Transfer Facility (HTF) Test Building

Center Location: Plum Brook Station, OH

Date Built: 1967

Description: The HTF tests large-scale propulsion systems at hypersonic 

conditions. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed HTF as “Utilized” in the RPMS for 2010. However, 

we determined that NASA mothballed the facility 3 years ago, and 

its last significant use was in 2002. NASA did not have any 

planned future uses.
APPENDIX B

24 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure B-6. Propulsion Systems Laboratory (PSL) Engine Test Building

Center Location: Glenn Research Center, Ohio

Date Built: 1969

Description: The PSL Engine Test Building is a full-scale engine test facility 

that can simulate flight conditions. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed PSL as “Utilized” in the RPMSfor 2010. Although a 

portion of the facility was undergoing modifications, we 

determined that NASA only used the facility for testing 23 percent 

of the time in 2010. NASA expects the utilization rate to increase 

following the modifications.
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 25

Figure B-7. Research Combustion Laboratory

Center Location: Glenn Research Center, Ohio

Date Built: 1945

Description: The Research Combustion Lab consists of a suite of test cells to 

test advanced propulsion systems, propellant, and ignition systems. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed the Research Combustion Lab as “Utilized” in the 

RPMS for 2010. However, we determined that NASA only used

the facility for testing 17 percent of the time in 2010. NASA did 

not have any planned future uses.
APPENDIX B

26 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure B-8. Space Power Facility (SPF) Test Building

Center Location: Plum Brook Station, Ohio

Date Built: 1968

Description: The SPF Test Building is the world’s largest space environmental 

simulation chamber and had the capability to test large spacecraft in 

a thermal vacuum environment. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed the SPF as “Utilized” in the RPMS for 2010. 

Although the facility is currently undergoing modifications to add 

additional capabilities, we determined that NASA did not use the 

facility in 2010, and it was last used sometime in 2009. NASA 

plans to use the facility for future Crew Exploration Vehicle tests.
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 27

Figure B-9. Vertical Lift Engine Test Facility

Center Location: Glenn Research Center, Ohio

Date Built: 1973

Description: Even though it is still known as the Vertical Lift Engine Test 

Facility, it is no longer used for that purpose and instead had been 

used by Glenn during some part of the past 10 years to conduct 

fuel cell tests.

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed The Vertical Lift Engine Test Facility as “Utilized” in 

the RPMS for 2010. However, we determined that NASA no 

longer used the facility for vertical lift engine testing, and it was 

not used for any other purpose in 2010. NASA plans to use the 

facility for a short-term test in 2011 and then demolish it sometime 

in 2013.
APPENDIX B

28 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure B-10. General Warehouse (Demolished) Site

Center Location: Plum Brook Station, Ohio

Date Built: 1943

Description: General warehouse

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed this general warehouse at Plum Brook as “Utilized”

in the RPMS for 2010. However, we determined that the facility 

was demolished sometime in 2010. 
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 29

Figure B-11. Advanced Engine Test Facility

Center Location: Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

Date Built: 1965

Description: The Advanced Engine Test Facility was built to test the first stage 

of the Saturn V rocket.

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed the Advanced Engine Test Facility as “Utilized” in 

the RPMS for 2010. However, we determined that NASA did not 

use the facility in 2010, and in fact was last used to test a Russianbuilt rocket engine in 1998. NASA plans to mothball the facility 

some time in 2011 or 2012.
APPENDIX B

30 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure B-12. Propulsion and Structural Test Facility

Center Location: Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

Date Built: 1957

Description: The Propulsion and Structural Test Facility was built to test Saturn I 

rockets. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed the Propulsion and Structural Test Facility as 

“Utilized” in the RPMS for 2010. However, we determined that 

NASA did not use the facility in 2010, and it was last used in the 

1990s for testing Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters. NASA 

plans to mothball the facility some time in 2011 or 2012.
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 31

Figure B-13. Structural Dynamic Test Facility

Center Location: Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

Date Built: 1964

Description: The Structural Dynamic Test Facility was built for ground vibration 

testing of the Saturn V rocket and the Apollo Spacecraft.

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed the Structural Dynamic Test Facility as “Utilized” in 

the RPMS for 2010. However, we determined that NASA did not 

use the facility in 2010, and in fact was last used in the 1970s for 

ground vibration testing of the complete Space Shuttle vehicle. 

NASA plans to mothball the facility some time in 2011 or 2012.
APPENDIX B

32 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Figure B-14. Test Facility 300

Center Location: Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

Date Built: 1964

Description: Test Facility 300 is a propulsion thermal dynamic test system for 

testing space propulsion systems.

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed Test Facility 300 as “Utilized” in the RPMS for 2010. 

However, we determined that NASA did not use the facility in 

2010, and it was last used in 2009 to test eco-sensors and foam for 

the Space Shuttle’s external tank. NASA plans to mothball the 

facility some time in 2011 or 2012.
APPENDIX B

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 33

Figure B-15. Test Facility 500

Center Location: Marshall Space Flight Center, Alabama

Date Built: 1966

Description: Test Facility 500 was constructed to test liquid hydrogen/liquid 

oxygen turbo pumps for the J-2 engine. 

RPMS Utilization Rate: “Utilized”

NASA OIG Assessment: NASA listed Test Facility 500 as “Utilized” in the RPMS for 2010. 

However, we determined that NASA only used the facility for a 

short period in 2010 to perform cryogenic testing. NASA plans to 

mothball the facility some time in 2011 or 2012.
APPENDIX C

34 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
APPENDIX C

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 35
APPENDIX C

36 REPORT NO. IG-11-024

Enclosure

omitted
APPENDIX D

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 37

REPORT DISTRIBUTION

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Administrator

Deputy Administrator

Chief of Staff

NASA Advisory Council’s Audit, Finance, and Analysis Committee

Associate Administrator for Mission Support

Assistant Administrator for Strategic Infrastructure

Director, Glenn Research Center

Director, Kennedy Space Center

Director, Marshall Space Flight Center 

Non-NASA Organizations and Individuals

Office of Management and Budget

Deputy Associate Director, Energy and Science Division

Branch Chief, Science and Space Programs Branch

Government Accountability Office

Director, NASA Financial Management, Office of Financial Management and 

Assurance

Director, NASA Issues, Office of Acquisition and Sourcing Management

Congressional Committees and Subcommittees, Chairman and 

Ranking Member

Senate Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

Subcommittee on Science and Space

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

House Committee on Appropriations

Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

Subcommittee on Government Organization, Efficiency, and Financial Management

House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight

Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

REPORT NO. IG-11-024 39

Major Contributors to the Report:

Ridge Bowman, Director, Infrastructure and Facilities Management Directorate

Michael Brant, Project Manager

Wayne Emberton, Auditor

Megan Paxton, Auditor
AUGUST 4, 2011

REPORT No. IG-11-024

OFFICE OF AUDITS

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ADDITIONAL COPIES

Visit http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY11/ to obtain additional copies of this report, or contact the 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits at 202-358-1232.

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

In order to help us improve the quality of our products, if you wish to comment on the quality or 

usefulness of this report, please send your comments to Mr. Laurence Hawkins, Audit Operations and 

Quality Assurance Director, at Laurence.B.Hawkins@nasa.gov or call 202-358-1543.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE AUDITS

To suggest ideas for or to request future audits, contact the Assistant Inspector General for Audits. 

Ideas and requests can also be mailed to:

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546-0001

NASA HOTLINE

To report fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement, contact the NASA OIG Hotline at 800-424-9183 or 

800-535-8134 (TDD). You may also write to the NASA Inspector General, P.O. Box 23089, L’Enfant 

Plaza Station, Washington, DC 20026, or use http://oig.nasa.gov/hotline.html#form. The identity of 

each writer and caller can be kept confidential, upon request, to the extent permitted by law.