DECEMBER 19, 2011

AUDIT REPORT

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 (ASSIGNMENT NO. A-11-014-00)

OFFICE OF AUDITS

NASA’S INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES:

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE AGENCY’S REAL PROPERTY 

MASTER PLANNING

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration
REPORT NO. IG-12-008

Final report released by:

Paul K. Martin

Inspector General

Acronyms

CoF Construction of Facilities

CRV Current Replacement Value

FERP Facilities Engineering and Real Property

FY Fiscal Year

GAGAS Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards

GAO Government Accountability Office

NPR NASA Procedural Requirements

OA Office of Audits

OIG Office of Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget
DECEMBER 19, 2011

REPORT NO. IG-12-008

OVERVIEW

NASA’S INFRASTRUCTURE AND FACILITIES: AN ASSESSMENT 

OF THE AGENCY’S REAL PROPERTY MASTER PLANNING

The Issue

NASA’s real property holdings include more than 5,000 buildings and other structures 

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

occupy 44 million square feet and represent more than $29 billion in current replacement 

value (CRV).

1

For the past decade NASA, the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Government 

Accountability Office (GAO), and Congress have all identified NASA’s aging 

infrastructure as a top challenge for the Agency.

 However, over 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are more than 40 years 

old and reaching the end of their designated life spans. At the same time, the Agency is 

undergoing considerable changes in mission focus with the retirement of the Space 

Shuttle Program after 39 years and uncertainty about the facilities needed for the next 

space launch program. Moreover, NASA is dealing with these challenges at a time when 

growing budget deficits are straining the resources of all Federal agencies. This will 

require the Agency to make even more difficult decisions regarding its infrastructure. 

2

 In the NASA Authorization Act of 

2010, Congress directed the Agency 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

In response to these concerns and in order to make the strategic decisions necessary to 

address its infrastructure challenges, NASA is undertaking a number of efforts including 

developing its first integrated Agency-wide real property master plan. According to 

Headquarters Facilities, Engineering, and Real Property (FERP) Division officials, 

NASA began their efforts to develop the Agency-wide master plan in 2008. Prior to this 

effort, NASA relied almost exclusively on Center-based planning and the annual 

 

 1 Information related to asset measurement was obtained from NASA’s Deferred Maintenance Assessment 

Report, October 1, 2010. According to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 8831.2E, “Facilities 

Maintenance and Operations Management,” November 18, 2008, the CRV is solely an escalated value 

and should not be used as an actual replacement cost.

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-12-008

Construction of Facilities (CoF) prioritization process to project the Agency’s 

infrastructure needs. However, that approach made it difficult to coordinate 

infrastructure needs across the Agency and to strategically align facility resources. 

NASA intends to use the Agency-wide master plan to better coordinate facilities resource

needs across the Agency and link those needs with projected funding. Although NASA 

has a variety of documents and tools to assist in making strategic decisions on its 

facilities, Agency officials expect that the Agency-wide master plan will provide a 

baseline to guide planning for the infrastructure needed to meet mission requirements. 

NASA’s strategy for developing its Agency-wide master plan is to consolidate the 

individual real property plans developed by each Center. Through this consolidation, 

Headquarters officials intend to guide development planning, define shared programmatic 

objectives, integrate proposals, distribute resources, and ensure that Center plans align 

with overall Agency missions. 

In 2009, NASA adopted a strategy to renew and modernize its facilities that established a 

goal to reduce the CRV of each Center’s facilities by 15 percent by 2055. CRV is the 

metric by which NASA measures the reduction in its real property footprint. NASA 

subsequently established an interim goal to reduce CRV by 10 percent by 2020, which 

was incorporated into NASA’s 2010 Center master planning initiative. In October 2009 

the Assistant Administrator, Office of Strategic Infrastructure, instructed the Center 

Directors to update their Center facilities master plans by September 2010. 

An integral part of implementing Center master plans is the annual prioritization process 

NASA uses to budget construction projects. Construction projects are budgeted through 

the CoF program, which the Agency established to provide funds to Centers for 

construction of new facilities, refurbishment, major repair projects, and demolition. The 

CoF program includes four categories of construction projects, each of which should be 

included in the Centers’ master plans: 

1. Institutional construction projects are primarily repair and revitalization projects 

that benefit a Center’s critical infrastructure, such as the repair of electrical 

distribution systems. The Centers are required to submit institutional CoF 

projects annually to Headquarters, which then prioritizes the projects using a riskbased matrix based on probability, consequence, and other factors that may vary 

from year-to-year. 

2. Programmatic construction projects directly benefit specific programs and are 

funded by the Mission Directorates. 

3. Recapitalization projects are designed to restore facilities to an almost new 

condition and may include new construction or renovation.

4

 4 In the Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation, the recapitalization 

program funding is included within the institutional and programmatic CoF categories, but a different 

prioritization process is used for institutional, programmatic, and recapitalization projects.

 These projects are 
OVERVIEW

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 iii

funded separately from the institutional CoF and therefore not prioritized using 

the same risk-based matrix. 

4. Demolition projects are used to dispose of assets that are underutilized and do not 

support current or future NASA mission requirements.

NASA expected to complete its first Agency-wide master plan by the end of fiscal year 

(FY) 2011. However, due to other priorities NASA now expects the plan will not be 

completed until the end of calendar year 2011. Although intended as an internal planning 

document, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee has requested a copy 

of the plan when it is complete. 

Sound Agency-wide master planning and an effective process for prioritizing 

construction projects will help NASA officials make strategic decisions regarding the 

Agency’s real property assets, especially decisions aimed at eliminating facilities that 

may no longer be needed. Given the importance of these issues, this OIG audit examined 

(1) whether NASA has an effective Agency-wide master planning process; (2) whether 

NASA Centers are actively reducing their footprint in accordance with NASA’s facilities 

strategy; and (3) whether NASA has an effective approach for prioritizing projects for 

CoF funding. See Appendix A for details of our scope and methodology. 

Results

NASA’s development of the Agency’s first integrated master plan is a positive step 

toward better managing its diverse real property assets. However, we found deficiencies 

within the individual Center master plans the Agency is using to develop the integrated 

Agency plan that may limit the Plan’s usefulness for making strategic real property 

decisions. Specifically, we found that NASA is developing its initial master plan based

on Center master plans that (1) were developed using funding assumptions for the 

recapitalization program that are no longer realistic and (2) are missing essential 

information needed to make objective Agency-wide real property decisions. In addition, 

5 of the 10 Centers did not develop master plans to reduce their real property footprint in 

accordance with Agency goals because of uncertain mission requirements. Moreover, the 

restrictive criteria and competitive nature of the prioritization process the Agency used 

for institutional CoF projects – an integral part of implementing the Center master plans –

discouraged some Centers from submitting their top priorities for funding. During the 

audit, NASA Headquarters and the Centers revised the CoF prioritization process in ways 

we believe will enable the Centers to better prioritize their CoF projects based on a wider 

range of information. However, these revisions are not yet reflected in NASA policy. 

We acknowledge that developing an integrated Agency master plan in a fluctuating 

budget environment is a significant challenge for NASA. However, we believe that with 

improved guidance for developing the Center master plans and implementing an 

institutional CoF prioritization process, NASA will be in a better position to produce a 

more comprehensive Agency master plan, which in turn will enable the Agency to make 
OVERVIEW

iv REPORT NO. IG-12-008

better strategic decisions regarding its real property assets, especially decisions that 

involve trade-offs between the Centers.

Development of the Agency-Wide Master Plan Is a Positive Step Toward Better 

Management of NASA’s Diverse Real Property Assets. In our judgment, NASA’s 

efforts to develop an integrated Agency master plan should improve management of the 

Agency’s diverse real property assets. Specifically, a well-designed and integrated 

master plan should better enable the Agency to perform cross-Center assessments to 

identify unneeded or duplicative infrastructure and to examine opportunities for 

consolidation of capabilities. In the absence of an integrated Agency master plan, NASA 

has relied almost exclusively on Center-based planning and the annual CoF prioritization 

process to project the Agency’s infrastructure needs, making it difficult to coordinate 

such needs across the Agency 

Nevertheless, we found deficiencies within the individual Center master plans NASA is 

using to develop the master plan that may limit its usefulness for making strategic 

decisions regarding the Agency’s real property. 

The Majority of Center Plans Are Based on Funding Assumptions that Are No 

Longer Valid and Are Missing Required Information. At the time of our review, 

NASA was still developing its first integrated Agency master plan. During the FY 2012 

budget process, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reduced NASA’s 

proposed recapitalization budget for FY 2013 through FY 2017 by approximately 60 

percent. At that time, NASA Headquarters officials had already begun consolidating the 

completed individual Center plans, and only 1 of the 10 plans was updated to reflect the 

reduced budget figure. Accordingly, the Agency-wide master plan is being developed 

based on Center plans that incorporate a funding projection of approximately $1.7 billion 

over 5 years rather than OMB’s revised projection of approximately $750 million over 

the same 5 years. Headquarters officials told us they are reviewing their facilities 

strategy in light of the significance of the reduction in the recapitalization budget, and if 

major shortfalls persist in upcoming budget cycles officials said they will revise the 

strategy and issue new guidance. In the meantime, the FERP Division has not directed

the Centers to update their master plans based on the new funding assumptions and has 

proceeded with development of the Agency-wide plan based on the existing Center plans. 

Given the magnitude of OMB’s funding reductions, we believe a master plan that reflects 

the current projected funding levels expected in FYs 2013 through 2017 would better

enable the Centers and the Agency to develop realistic plans to ensure the vitality of 

necessary infrastructure and reduce NASA’s real property footprint. 

In addition to using now inaccurate funding assumptions, most Center plans were missing 

required information such as institutional CoF funding and programmatic CoF projects 

and how those projects reflected NASA or Center missions. The absence of this 

information resulted from inadequate guidance from NASA Headquarters to the Centers

regarding how to develop their master plans and a lack of communication between the 

Centers and the Mission Directorates. Without this information, the Agency-wide master 
OVERVIEW

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 v

plan will not provide NASA managers with the comprehensive information needed to 

make strategic Agency-wide real property decisions to support NASA’s missions.

Not All Centers Are on Track to Meet Agency Goals for Reducing NASA’s Real 

Property “Footprint.” Since FY 2005, NASA has made progress in reducing its overall 

footprint, disposing of 645 buildings and structures with a total CRV of $931.5 million. 

This represents a reduction of approximately 13 percent of NASA’s total buildings and 

structures. However, not all Centers are on track to meet the Agency’s goals in this area. 

As part of the 2010 master planning initiative, the FERP Division instructed the Centers 

to plan for a 10 percent reduction to their CRVs by 2020. However, only 5 of the 10 

Centers produced plans that incorporated this goal. Center officials told us that one

reason their plans do not reflect this goal is that they are reluctant to dispose of property 

that may be needed for future Agency missions. Given the varying mission requirements 

of each Center, we believe that this “across the board” reduction strategy will make it 

difficult for NASA to achieve its future CRV reduction goals. Instead, we believe the 

Agency needs a strategy that better balances its CRV reduction criteria with the mission 

needs of individual Centers. 

Institutional CoF Prioritization Process Discouraged Some Centers from Submitting 

Their Top Priorities for Funding. The institutional projects that are part of each 

Center’s master plan are budgeted through the annual CoF prioritization process and the 

recapitalization program. However, officials from 6 of the 10 Centers we spoke with 

stated that their Centers did not always submit the institutional projects considered to be 

the Center’s top priorities because the process was overly restrictive and the applicable 

requirements varied from year-to-year. For institutional projects to compete for CoF 

funding, they had to score a high rating on the risk-based matrix, meaning that the 

existing facility has a high probability of a catastrophic failure in the near term, as well as 

receive points for other secondary factors.5

We acknowledge the need for appropriate oversight of the Centers’ CoF project requests 

to ensure that Agency-wide mission needs are met. We also realize that NASA is faced 

with challenging decisions when prioritizing institutional needs across the Agency. 

However, in our judgment a prioritization process that discourages Centers from 

submitting their top priorities – whether or not these priorities are ultimately funded –

 As a result, Center officials said they 

prioritized institutional projects based on which facilities were the most degraded rather 

than which construction projects would be most useful to the Centers in meeting 

programmatic and Agency needs. In addition, although the CoF prioritization process 

occurs annually, we found that the process was not documented in NASA policy and that 

the submission requirements varied from year-to-year, making it difficult for Centers to 

effectively plan the use of their CoF funding. 

 5 Secondary factors are additional point-earning categories Headquarters uses to further prioritize the 

projects that have the same risk-based matrix score. These factors and the points available can change 

each year. The following are examples of factors included in the FY 2013 CoF program submission 

guidelines: increase infrastructure reliability; life-cycle cost; Center priority; health, safety, and security; 

and sustainability.
OVERVIEW

vi REPORT NO. IG-12-008

leaves NASA managers without key information needed to assess and prioritize the real 

property needs of the Agency.

During the course of our audit, NASA Headquarters and Center officials revised the 

institutional CoF prioritization process for FY 2014. The revised process retains the riskbased matrix, but eliminates the current secondary factors and prioritizes projects using a 

more consistent set of risk assessment measures including mission dependency, Center 

priority, and facility/system condition. We believe the revisions to the CoF prioritization 

process are positive developments that will enable Centers to better prioritize CoF 

projects based on a wider range of information. In our judgment, updating the new 

prioritization process in NASA policy would help facilitate its implementation. 

Conclusion. NASA faces significant infrastructure challenges as it works to meet 

current and future mission requirements and to comply with the 2010 NASA 

Authorization Act’s directive to reduce the Agency’s infrastructure to meet current and 

future missions and expected funding levels. Given these challenges, the Agency must 

effectively plan and prioritize its infrastructure needs. While development of NASA’s 

first Agency-wide master plan is a positive step toward addressing these challenges, we 

believe improved guidance is needed to facilitate the development of future updates to 

the plan. Moreover, until NASA develops a plan that reflects current anticipated funding 

levels and is fully representative of the needs of the Agency and the Centers, it will be 

challenging for the Agency to prioritize its needs to ensure the vitality of its infrastructure 

and reduce its real property footprint. In addition, we question NASA’s “across the 

board” real property reduction strategy that requires the same level of reduction from 

each Center regardless of their individual missions. We believe that with improved 

guidance on the Center master planning process and the institutional CoF prioritization 

process, NASA will be in a better position to produce a more comprehensive Agency 

master plan, which will support NASA officials in making strategic decisions regarding 

its real property assets, especially those decisions involving trade-offs between Centers.

Management Action

To improve NASA’s ability to make effective strategic management decisions regarding 

real property, we recommended that the Assistant Administrator for the Mission Support 

Directorate direct the FERP Division to (1) provide clear guidance to the Centers on the 

information that should be included in Center master plans to ensure that similar 

information is captured for all Centers; (2) ensure plans to reduce the Agency’s real 

property footprint more fully consider the specific missions of the individual Centers 

when setting real property reduction requirements; and (3) update NASA policy to better 

reflect the current risk-based process for prioritizing institutional CoF projects. 

In response to a draft of our report, the Associate Administrator for the Mission Support 

Directorate concurred with our recommendations. We consider the Associate 

Administrator’s proposed actions to be responsive to our recommendations. The 

recommendations will be closed upon completion and verification of the corrective 
OVERVIEW

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 vii

actions. While the Associate Administrator concurred with the recommendations, he did 

not concur with the report itself and stated that the report contained “many inaccuracies.” 

Specifically, he noted that the funding assumptions for the current Agency-wide master 

plan were valid when Centers began developing their master plans and that the current 

Agency master plan would serve as a baseline from which NASA can make deviations 

and decisions on future investments. 

We strongly disagree that our report contains inaccurate information. Consistent with our 

usual process, we carefully considered management’s technical comments to our draft 

and incorporated the information where appropriate. In addition, we followed the quality 

control procedures required by Federal government auditing standards, including 

submitting the report for an independent verification of the findings and supporting 

evidence. 

With regard to the example cited by the Associate Administrator, we agree that the 

Center master plans were developed based on funding assumptions that were valid at the 

time the plans were prepared, and we do not suggest otherwise in our report. Rather, the 

report simply points out that given the magnitude of the subsequent funding reductions, a 

master plan that reflects the current projected funding levels expected in FYs 2013 

through 2017 would better enable the Centers and the Agency to develop realistic plans 

to ensure the vitality of necessary infrastructure and reduce NASA’s real property 

footprint. Moreover, we specifically noted in the report that NASA officials expect the 

Agency-wide master plan will provide a baseline to guide planning for the infrastructure 

needed to meet mission requirements. 

The full text of the Associate Administrator’s comments is provided in Appendix B. 

DECEMBER 19, 2011

REPORT NO. IG-12-008

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Background _________________________________________ 1

Objectives __________________________________________ 5

RESULTS

Improved Guidance Would Facilitate Future Updates of NASA’s 

Agency-Wide Real Property Master Plan ________________ 6

APPENDIX A

Scope and Methodology_______________________________ 19

Review of Internal Controls ____________________________ 20

Prior Coverage ______________________________________ 21

APPENDIX B

Management Comments ______________________________ 22

APPENDIX C

Report Distribution___________________________________ 24

DECEMBER 19, 2011

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 1

INTRODUCTION

Background

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

holdings that include more than 100,000 acres and more than 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 $29 billion in current replacement value 

(CRV).

6

For the past decade, 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 management challenge.

 However, over 80 percent of NASA’s facilities are more than 40 years old and 

reaching the end of their designated life spans. This results in significant infrastructure 

challenges for NASA, such as ensuring its aging real property is available and in a 

suitable condition to meet current and future mission requirements. At the same time, the 

Agency is undergoing considerable changes in mission focus, with the Space Shuttle 

Program ending after 39 years and uncertainty about what facilities will be needed for the 

next space launch program. Moreover, NASA is grappling with the challenge of its aging 

infrastructure at a time when growing budget deficits are straining the resources of all 

Federal agencies. This will require the Agency to make even more difficult decisions 

regarding its infrastructure. 

7

 6 Information related to asset measurement was obtained from NASA’s Deferred Maintenance Assessment 

Report, October 1, 2010. According to NPR 8831.2E, “Facilities Maintenance and Operations 

Management,” November 18, 2008, the CRV is solely an escalated value and should not be used as an 

actual replacement cost.

 The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 

directed 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.” Congress noted that, 

“in a number of areas NASA finds itself ‘holding onto’ facilities and capabilities scaled 

to another era.” Specifically, the Act requires NASA to develop and provide to Congress 

by October 11, 2011, a comprehensive study that examines NASA’s structure, 

organization, and institutional assets and identifies a strategy for evolving toward the 

most efficient retention, sizing, and distribution of infrastructure consistent with NASA’s 

missions and mandates. 

7 “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.
INTRODUCTION

2 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

Agency-Wide Master Plan. A central part of NASA’s infrastructure planning effort is 

the development of its first real property Agency-wide master plan. According to NASA 

Headquarters, Facilities, Engineering, and Real Property (FERP) Division officials, 

NASA began this effort in 2008 with the development of an Agency facilities strategy, 

known as the “similar/smaller” strategy, which Agency leadership adopted in March 

2009. NASA’s strategy is to “renew and modernize its facilities to sustain its 

capabilities, and to accommodate those capabilities in the most efficient facilities set 

practical.” The facilities strategy established a goal to reduce CRV by 15 percent by 

2055. NASA subsequently established an interim goal to reduce CRV by 10 percent by 

2020, which was incorporated into NASA’s 2010 Center master planning initiative.

In October 2009, the Assistant Administrator, Office of Strategic Infrastructure,

instructed the Center Directors to update their Center facilities master plans by September 

2010 in order to progress toward an integrated Agency master plan for facilities. 

According to the Assistant Administrator’s memorandum to the Centers, an Agency 

master plan is a “necessary step to ensure that NASA invests its limited funds in an 

optimal alignment with our mission, and to provide a strong connection between 

institutional funding and mission success.” The updated Center master plans were 

completed in FY 2010 and NASA’s Agency-wide master plan is being developed by 

consolidating these plans. Through this consolidation effort, Headquarters officials are 

hoping to guide development planning, define shared objectives, integrate proposals, 

distribute resources, and ensure that Center plans align with the Agency’s mission. 

Prior to this effort, NASA relied almost exclusively on Center-based planning and the 

annual Construction of Facilities (CoF) prioritization process to project the Agency’s 

infrastructure needs. However, this approach made it challenging to coordinate 

infrastructure needs across the Agency and to strategically align facility resources.8

According to NASA policy, each Center is required to maintain a Center master plan for 

facility planning and budgeting activities.

 

Although NASA has a variety of documents and tools to assist management in making 

strategic decisions on its facilities, officials hope that an Agency-wide master plan will 

provide a baseline to guide the Agency with respect to the infrastructure needed to meet 

mission requirements. In addition, according to NASA’s 2011 Strategic Plan, active 

management in master planning helps gain efficiencies by eliminating redundancies and 

assets that no longer benefit the Agency.

9

• be a living document, addressing a planning horizon of not less than 20 years, and 

be kept current with changes to the Center’s mission, facilities, and infrastructure;

 In addition, Center master plans should meet 

the following requirements:

 8 The CoF program is within the Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration account and

integrates institutional and programmatic facilities projects with the 5-year recapitalization plan, to 

ensure space and aeronautics programs have the required facilities to accomplish their missions. 

9 NPR 8810.1, “Master Planning Procedural Requirements,” dated April 28, 2005.
INTRODUCTION

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 3

• provide a comprehensive presentation of existing and projected assets to meet the 

mission needs of the Center, and explain how those assets relate to the present and 

future mission of the Center and how they relate within the context of the Center 

and its interrelationship with its surrounding area, the local community, and 

national policy;

• provide a narrative, statistical, and graphic record of existing conditions (natural 

features, buildings, structures, utilities, transportation systems, and other 

improvements) at the Center;

• include current, as well as proposed capabilities necessary to support program 

requirements, as well as facilitate coordination with Center-supported programs

and customers as well as Center stakeholders; and

• be used as a tool in the development of Center budgets and in program and project 

planning. 

NASA policy also states that the Center master plans should be the links between the 

programs and projects and the requirements for Center development and should provide 

the information needed to make well-informed decisions. In addition, according to FERP

officials, the Center plans should link to the Agency’s goals both broadly and 

specifically. The broad linkages should be based on each Center’s part in accomplishing 

NASA’s mission. The specific linkages should relate to the Agency’s strategy to reduce 

its facilities footprint and to the Center’s assets that support mission activities. The FERP 

Division is in the process of updating NASA policy and creating a supplemental master 

planning handbook to provide additional guidance to the Centers for their planning 

efforts. 

FERP officials expected to complete the first version of the Agency’s master plan by the 

end of FY 2011; however, due to other reporting priorities such as the comprehensive 

study required by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, NASA officials said they expect

the plan to be completed by the end of calendar year 2011. Although the plan is intended 

as an internal NASA document, the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee 

has requested a copy.

NASA’s Construction of Facilities Program. According to FERP officials, the 

strategies outlined in the Center master plans assist Centers in determining where to focus 

institutional improvements. An integral part of implementing Center master plans is the 

CoF program, which NASA uses to budget construction projects. The CoF program was 

established to ensure that NASA’s science, space, and aeronautics programs have the 

facilities needed to accomplish their missions, and one of the goals of the program is to 

support and implement the facilities strategy. The CoF program encompasses discrete 

projects with initial cost estimate over $10 million, minor construction and revitalization 

between $1 million and $10 million, facilities planning and design, and demolition. 

Projects with initial cost estimates of $1 million or less are accomplished through 

day-to-day facility maintenance and repair activities provided for in program and Center 
INTRODUCTION

4 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

operating budgets. The CoF program is managed through NASA’s Capital Facility 

Investment program, which established four separate categories of construction projects:

(1) institutional, (2) programmatic, (3) recapitalization, and (4) demolition.

10

Institutional Construction Projects. Institutional construction projects are primarily 

repair and revitalization projects to benefit a Center’s critical infrastructure. For 

example, projects to repair electrical distribution or potable water systems are considered 

institutional projects. The Centers annually submit institutional CoF projects to 

Headquarters. Projects are prioritized by a team that includes representatives from the 

NASA Office of Strategic Infrastructure, Mission Directorates, Centers, and other 

functional leadership offices, using a risk-based matrix of probability and consequence, 

as well as secondary factors used to further prioritize projects that have the same riskbased matrix score. The submission requirements, including the secondary factors, may 

change from year-to-year. An example of the factors included in the FY 2013 CoF 

program submission guidelines are: increased infrastructure reliability; life-cycle cost;

Center priority; health, safety, and security; and sustainability. The Centers submit their 

CoF projects 2 years in advance of the budget year of the project. For example, in FY 

2011, the Centers submitted projects for funding in the FY 2013 budget.

Programmatic Construction Projects. Programmatic construction projects directly 

benefit specific Agency programs and are funded by Mission Directorates. The programs 

are responsible for evaluating and prioritizing facilities needs against other program 

priorities. The individual Mission Directorates collaborate with the Centers and the 

FERP Division in implementing the projects. 

Recapitalization Program. NASA’s recapitalization program was established in FY 2011 

in response to the inclusion of facilities renewal as a prominent part of the Agency 

facilities strategy. The recapitalization program includes projects that are funded 

separately from the institutional CoF projects and therefore not prioritized using the same 

risk-based matrix. The recapitalization program was designed to fund projects that 

(1) have estimated costs of $10 million or more, (2) have strategic replacement or 

renovation initiatives to restore the facilities to an almost new condition, (3) are 

consistent with the current Center master plan, and (4) support Agency and mission 

strategy. NASA’s first 5-year recapitalization plan of $1.7 billion was reduced by the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the FY 2012 budgeting process to 

approximately $750 million, requiring NASA to develop a new 5-year plan as part of the 

FY 2013 budget cycle.

Demolition Program. NASA’s demolition program disposes of assets that are 

underutilized and do not support current or future NASA mission requirements. 

According to FERP officials, NASA has had an active demolition program since 2004. 

 10 In the Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration appropriation, the recapitalization 

program funding is included within the institutional and programmatic CoF categories, but a different 

prioritization process is used for institutional, programmatic, and recapitalization projects.
INTRODUCTION

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 5

From FY 2006 through FY 2010, NASA demolished 332 buildings and structures, 

thereby reducing its CRV by $703.4 million.

Table 1 shows the amount of money spent by NASA on CoF projects between FY 2006 

and FY 2010. During this period, NASA spent approximately $1.91 billion on CoF 

projects, including $64.9 million for demolition of facilities. In contrast, the total NASA 

appropriation during this period was $86.7 billion; therefore, the money spent on CoF 

projects was 2.2 percent of the total NASA appropriations. 

Table 1: Dollars Spent on Institutional and Programmatic CoF Projects from FY 2006 

through FY 2010 (in millions)

CoF Projects FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Totals

Institutional 

Discrete Projects $ 48.4 $ 44.6 $ 94.5 $133.4 $126.4 $447.3

Minor 

Construction and 

Revitalization

115.5 75.1 105.6 81.6 84.9 462.7

Facility Planning 

and Design

26.2 14.8 34.5 38.9 23.0 137.4

Demolition 10.4 10.1 14.4 15.0 15.0 64.9

Labor and Travel 0.0 15.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.8

Subtotal $200.5 $160.4 $249.0 $268.9 $249.3 $1,128.1

Programmatic 

Discrete Projects $137.4 $174.5 $ 88.4 $ 92.5 $ 85.1 $577.9

Minor 

Construction and 

Revitalization

42.7 20.1 28.7 29.2 46.4 167.1

Facility Planning 

and Design

 5.6 19.9 0.0 0.0 8.6 34.1

Subtotal $185.7 $214.5 $117.1 $121.7 $140.1 $779.1

 Total CoF $386.2 $374.9 $366.1 $390.6 $389.4 $1,907.2

Objectives

Our objectives were to determine whether NASA has an effective Agency-wide master 

planning process; whether NASA Centers are actively reducing their footprint in 

accordance with NASA’s facilities strategy; and whether NASA has an effective 

approach for prioritizing projects for CoF funding. We also reviewed internal controls as 

they relate to the audit objectives. See Appendix A for details of the audit’s scope and 

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

6 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

IMPROVED GUIDANCE WOULD FACILITATE FUTURE 

UPDATES OF NASA’S AGENCY-WIDE REAL 

PROPERTY MASTER PLAN 

NASA is developing its first integrated Agency master plan, which is a positive step 

toward better management of the Agency’s diverse real property assets. However, 

we found deficiencies within the individual Center master plans NASA is using to

develop the Agency plan, which may limit the plan’s usefulness for making strategic 

real property decisions. Specifically, we found that the initial Agency master plan is 

being developed based on Center master plans that rely on funding assumptions for 

the recapitalization program that are no longer valid. In addition, most of the Center 

plans are missing essential information needed to make objective Agency-wide real 

property decisions. Moreover, because of uncertainty regarding mission 

requirements, 5 of the 10 Centers did not develop their master plans in accordance 

with NASA’s goals for reducing the Agency’s footprint. Finally, the restrictive 

criteria and competitive nature of the prioritization process for institutional CoF 

projects NASA used until recently discouraged some Centers from submitting their 

top priorities for funding.

During the audit, NASA Headquarters and the Centers revised the CoF prioritization 

process. We believe the revisions are positive developments that will enable the 

Centers to better prioritize their CoF projects based on a wider range of information. 

However, as of November 2011, NASA policy had not been updated to reflect these 

changes. In our judgment, updating the new prioritization process in NASA policy 

would help facilitate its implementation. 

We acknowledge that developing an integrated Agency master plan in a fluctuating 

budget environment is a significant challenge. However, we believe that improved 

guidance regarding the Center master planning process and the institutional CoF 

prioritization process, will put NASA in a better position to produce a 

comprehensive Agency master plan, which in turn will enable the Agency to make 

more informed strategic decisions regarding its real property assets, especially 

decisions that involve trade-offs between the Centers.

Development of an Agency-Wide Master Plan Is a Positive Step 

Toward Better Management of NASA’s Diverse Real Property 

Assets 

In our judgment, NASA’s efforts to develop an integrated Agency master plan should

improve management of NASA’s diverse real property assets. Specifically, a welldesigned and integrated master plan should better enable the Agency to perform crossCenter assessments to identify and eliminate unneeded or duplicative infrastructure and 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 7

to examine opportunities for consolidation of capabilities. This in turn should facilitate 

NASA’s efforts to more efficiently manage its facilities and reduce its real property 

footprint. In the absence of an integrated Agency master plan, NASA relied almost 

exclusively on Center-based planning and the annual CoF prioritization process to project 

the Agency’s infrastructure needs, which made it difficult to coordinate infrastructure 

needs across the Agency and strategically align facility resources to meet mission needs.

The Majority of Center Plans Are Based on Funding Assumptions 

that Are No Longer Valid and Are Missing Required Information

NASA plans to develop its first integrated Agency master plan by consolidating existing 

Center master plans. At the time of our review, NASA was still developing this master 

plan. However, we found deficiencies within the individual Center master plans upon 

which the Agency master plan will be based which may limit the master plan’s usefulness 

for making strategic real property decisions. Specifically, all but one of the Center plans

are based on funding levels that are no longer valid and many of the plans are missing 

essential information, such as institutional CoF funding, programmatic CoF projects, and 

how those projects relate to NASA or Center missions. By consolidating these

incomplete Center master plans, the Agency master plan may not provide a 

comprehensive and realistic plan for prioritizing infrastructure needs and reducing 

NASA’s real property footprint. 

NASA’s Initial Agency-Wide Master Plan Is Not Expected to Reflect Current 

Projected Funding Levels. To develop an Agency master plan, the Assistant 

Administrator, Office of Strategic Infrastructure requested in FY 2010 that each Center 

update its existing individual master plan. However, instead of requesting each Center to 

provide a formal master plan per NASA policy, FERP accepted alternate documentation 

in the form of master planning briefing packages (see Table 2).

11

In early 2011, FERP officials approved the individual Center planning documentation 

(referred to as Center plans) and began consolidating them into the Agency master plan. 

However, during the FY 2012 budget process, after the Center plans were completed, 

OMB reduced NASA’s proposed recapitalization budget from approximately $1.7 billion 

to $750 million –approximately 60 percent less than the amount NASA had used in its 

This documentation

included projects for institutional and programmatic CoF projects as well as 

recapitalization projects for the next 20 years in 5-year increments. At the time the 

Center plans were being developed, NASA’s planning figure for the recapitalization 

program was approximately $1.7 billion over 5 years (FY 2013 through FY 2017).

 11 NPR 8810.1, “Master Planning Procedural Requirements,” dated April 28, 2005. The master planning 

briefing package included the leadership briefing and Capital Investment Program Plan. The leadership 

briefing is a summarized version of a formal Center master plan in presentation slide format, and 

included a summary of metrics. The Capital Investment Program Plan should identify all investments 

planned by the institution or by programs regardless of funding source. However, institutional CoF is 

identified as a lump-sum amount of funding for each year rather than by specific project. 
RESULTS

8 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

planning. Only 1 of the 10 Centers – Johnson Space Center – updated its master plan to 

reflect the new recapitalization budget. As a result, the 2011 Agency master plan is being 

developed based on Center plans that for the most part do not reflect anticipated funding 

levels. 

FERP has not directed the Centers to update their 2010 master plans to reflect current 

anticipated funding levels. According to FERP officials, they are reviewing their 

facilities strategy based on the severity of the reduction in the recapitalization budget and,

if major shortfalls persist in upcoming budget cycles, will revise the strategy, issue new 

guidance, and direct the Centers to update their master plans.

We acknowledge that developing an Agency-wide master plan in a changing budget 

environment presents significant challenges. While senior agency officials note that the 

Agency master plan is a living document that should be updated every year based on new 

funding expectations, they concede that significant changes to expected funding levels 

may require significant deviations from the plan. As such, we believe that a plan that

reflects currently projected funding levels will better enable the Centers and the Agency 

to prioritize infrastructure needs to ensure the vitality of necessary infrastructure and 

reduce NASA’s real property footprint.

Inadequate Guidance and Lack of Communication Resulted in Missing and 

Inconsistent Information. In addition to using outdated funding assumptions, most 

Center master plans also did not explain how the real property needs identified reflect 

current and future Center missions. Specifically, we found that since FY 2010 only 3 of 

the 10 Centers had developed formal Center master plans in accordance with NASA 

policy and explained how the construction projects identified in their plan were linked to 

NASA’s or the Center’s mission. The remaining Centers developed a master planning 

briefing package that did not explain how the projects identified were related to NASA’s 

or the Center’s mission. Without a defined link between identified projects and a NASA 

or Center mission, the Center master planning documents do not provide the substantive 

information that will help NASA officials identify the projects that most closely align 

with Agency priorities. 

In addition, according to a memorandum from the Assistant Administrator, Office of 

Strategic Infrastructure, one of the goals of the 2010 master planning effort was to 

quantify and prioritize the institutional and program assets to show what can be 

accomplished within budget projections. According to FERP officials, the Capital 

Investment Program Plan, which is submitted as part of the Center master planning 

documentation, should include all investments planned by the institution or by programs, 

regardless of funding source. However, we found that 5 of the Centers excluded 

programmatic CoF projects from their master planning documentation and 1 excluded 

institutional CoF funding (see Table 2). 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 9

Table 2: Variances among Center Master Planning Documentationa

NASA Center

Formal Center 

Master Plan 

updated since FY 

2010

Projects Linked 

to NASA 

Mission

Types of 

Projects/Funding

Excludeda

Ames Research Center No No Programmatic CoF

Dryden Flight Research Center No No None

Glenn Research Center No No None

Goddard Space Flight Centerb No No Programmatic CoF

Jet Propulsion Laboratory Yesc Yes None

Johnson Space Center No No None

Kennedy Space Centerd No No Programmatic CoF

Langley Research Center Yes Yes Programmatic CoF 

Marshall Space Flight Center No No

Institutional CoF

Programmatic CoF

Stennis Space Center Yes Yes None a Data obtained from the Center Master Plans, leadership briefings, and Capital Investment Program Plans,

presented to NASA Headquarters for the 2010 master planning initiative.

b Goddard officials stated that they did not include programmatic CoF projects because they did not 

anticipate any new construction for any new capability for their Center.

c Jet Propulsion Laboratory only included recapitalization projects in their Center Master Plan per direction 

from NASA Headquarters, but each type of project was included in their Capital Investment Program 

Plan.

d

Kennedy Space Center submitted a 10-year plan, instead of a 20-year plan required by NASA policy.

To some extent, these inconsistencies were the result of inadequate guidance from 

Headquarters to the Centers regarding the elements that should be included in the Center 

master plans. Specifically, FERP officials provided the Centers with master planning 

guidance in the form of assorted e-mails, verbal instructions, and presentation slides. 

While some Centers believed the guidance was sufficient, officials from 4 of the 10 

Centers stated that the piece-meal method in which the guidance was disseminated led to 

confusion about the requirements.

In addition, officials we spoke with at 5 of the 10 Centers reported that communication 

between Center facilities offices and the Mission Directorates was inadequate. For 

example, Kennedy Space Center and Goddard Space Flight Center officials stated that 

their program offices do not coordinate with the Center facility offices in a timely manner 

once they become aware of a potential need. According to Center officials, the delays in 

coordinating with Center facilities offices limit the potential options available to address 

programmatic facility needs.

Center officials also told us they excluded from their plans much of the information 

related to programmatic CoF because they were unclear about the long-term mission 

needs of particular projects. For example, although we found Dryden Flight Research 

Center included some programmatic projects in their plans, Center officials stated that it 
RESULTS

10 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

was difficult to obtain project requirements from the Aeronautics Research Mission 

Directorate because the Directorate did not have a 10–20 year road map to indicate future 

needs.

According to FERP officials, the Agency master plan is intended to identify the overall 

direction for the Centers and not necessarily include a comprehensive list of CoF 

projects. However, in our judgment without the inclusion of all types of construction

projects, Center plans will not reflect the full scope of construction activities planned by 

the Centers. Therefore, the resulting Agency master plan may underestimate the amount 

of funds needed to execute the plan by hundreds of millions of dollars over the 20-year 

planning period. Moreover, without consistent and complete Center plans, the Agencywide master plan may not provide NASA managers with comprehensive and reliable 

information to make strategic Agency-wide real property decisions to support NASA’s 

missions. 

Not All Centers Are on Track to Meet the Agency’s Goals for 

Reducing NASA’s Real Property “Footprint”

As shown in Table 3, the total square footage of NASA’s facilities grew by 

approximately 2.8 million square feet since FY 2003 due to new construction and real 

property transfers from other Agencies.12

 12 Since the most recently completed CoF budgeting cycle covered FY 2013, and because construction 

projects cover multiple years, we chose 2003 as a starting point to provide a 10-year outlook for our 

analysis.

 Since FY 2009, the total square footage has 

increased by 1.7 million square feet; however, that increase is due almost entirely to the 

transfer of a 1.6 million square foot facility to Stennis Space Center from the Army in 

2011, as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure process. 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 11

Table 3: Center Square Footage Changes FY 2003 through FY 2011 and CRV Goals and 

Planned Changes from FY 2013 through FY 2020a 

NASA Center

Square Footage Increases/

(Decreases)

Plan to Meet 

10 Percent 

CRV 

Reduction 

by 2020 

Planned CRV 

Increases/

(Decreases)

FYs 2013 –

2020b

FYs 2003 –

2008

FYs 2009 –

2011

Ames Research Center 103,568 (148,304) Yes (17.3%)

Dryden Flight Research Center 426,478 26,000 No (5.6%)

Glenn Research Center (11,972) (445,561) Yes (10.0%)

Goddard Space Flight Center (6,027) 204,027 No (3.5%)

Jet Propulsion Laboratory (36,298) 190,936 No 7.6%

Johnson Space Center 94,159 (60,613) No (6.8%)

Kennedy Space Center 201,498 (75,806) No (5.1%)

Langley Research Center (131,219) (17,176) Yes (15.0%)

Marshall Space Flight Center 202,707 9,852 Yes (11.7%)

Stennis Space Center 258,668 1,981,863c Yes (10.0%)

Square Footage Increase 1,101,562 1,665,218

 Total Increase FY 2003 -2011 2,766,780

Average CRV Reduction (7.7%) a Data provided by the Centers.

b Data obtained from master planning briefing packages presented to NASA Headquarters for the 2010 

master planning initiative.

c

In 2011, Stennis Space Center took possession of the former Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, a

1.6 million square foot facility, from the U.S. Army as a result of the Base Realignment and Closure 

process.

Nevertheless, NASA’s goal is to reduce its overall footprint and the Agency has taken

steps toward this goal. For example, according to FERP officials, since FY 2005 NASA 

has disposed of 645 buildings and structures with a total CRV of $931.5 million.13

 13 The Agency uses CRV to measure facility reduction progress because it better reflects certain high-dollar 

NASA assets. For example, many of the Agency’s large capabilities – such as test stands, launch pads, 

and underground utilities – do not have square footage directly associated with them. Accordingly, tracking progress by reduction in square footage would not capture changes relating to these types of 

assets. However, some Center officials we spoke with questioned the use of the CRV metric because it 

is an escalated value, does not represent actual replacement cost, and does not consider mission 

requirements. Agency officials told us they are evaluating other units of measurement that may better 

reflect their goals.

 This 

represents a reduction of approximately 13 percent of NASA’s total buildings and 

structures. In addition, NASA is currently in the process of disposing of six sites through 

transfers and sales to other entities. Furthermore, between 2011 and 2015 NASA has 

more than 140 demolition projects planned, including infrastructure that will not be 

needed now that the Space Shuttle Program has ended.
RESULTS

12 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

We found that not all Centers are on track to meet the Agency’s goals for reducing its 

real property footprint. Specifically, as part of the 2010 master planning initiative the 

FERP Division instructed the Centers to produce plans that reflect a reduction in their 

CRVs of 10 percent by 2020. However, only 5 of the 10 Centers reported that they 

would be able to meet this goal (see Table 3). 

Some Centers stated that they are not able to meet the Agency’s real property reduction 

goal because they are reluctant to dispose of property they believe may be needed for 

future missions. For example, officials from the Kennedy and Johnson Space Centers

said that mission uncertainties involving human space exploration after retirement of the 

Space Shuttle program have resulted in their reluctance to meet the CRV reduction goals 

because they are not sure what facilities may be needed for the next space launch 

program. Johnson Space Center officials also noted that the majority of the Center’s

CRV is represented by multi-program facilities, which prevent them from targeting these 

facilities for disposal. In addition, Center officials noted that because some of the 

aeronautics and research Centers were unaffected by the retirement of the Shuttle 

Program their missions continue to grow. 

According to FERP officials, the Agency’s efforts to reduce its real property is 

challenging because there is no document that identifies the key missions, technologies, 

and programs that NASA intends to pursue over the next 20 to 30 years. Although the 

overall NASA strategic plan discusses NASA goals at a very high level, according to 

FERP officials it is not specific enough to provide facilities planners with sufficient 

information to develop plans at the Center level. In the absence of a strategy that 

describes the Agency’s major endeavors and the major capabilities the Agency must 

maintain, expand, or reduce to pursue those endeavors, master planners said they must 

work from Center “best guesses.” This in turn results in a conservative “keep it in case 

we need it” approach to master planning rather than one that proactively reconfigures the 

Agency’s infrastructure to meet specific mission requirements. 

Given the varying missions of each Center, requiring the same “across the board” 10 

percent CRV reduction from each Center does not give adequate weight to the Centers’ 

differing mission-related requirements. Moreover, applying the same “across the board” 

criteria ignores the possibility that some Centers may be in a position to achieve CRV 

reductions that exceed the 10 percent Agency goal. Therefore, we believe it will be 

difficult for the Agency to achieve its future CRV reduction goals without a strategy that 

better balances its CRV reduction criteria with the mission needs of the individual 

Centers, especially given the significant reductions to the proposed recapitalization 

budget.
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 13

Institutional CoF Prioritization Process Discouraged Some 

Centers from Submitting Their Top Priorities for Funding

The institutional construction projects that make up the individual Center master plans 

are budgeted through the annual CoF prioritization process and the 5-year recapitalization 

program. During our audit, officials from 6 of the 10 Centers stated that the way in 

which NASA structured the CoF prioritization process sometimes caused Centers not to 

submit their top infrastructure priorities (see Table 4). Instead, to ensure that their 

Centers were able to compete with other Centers for funding, Centers submitted projects 

they believed would be competitive based on the guidelines provided by Headquarters. 

Specifically, these officials reported that NASA’s process is overly restrictive and that 

the requirements change too frequently. 

Table 4: Institutional CoF Projects Submitted May Not Always 

Reflect Actual Center Top Priorities

NASA Center

Data Call Criteria Restricted 

Centers from Submitting their 

Top Center Priorities?

Ames Research Center Yes

Dryden Flight Research Center Yes

Glenn Research Center No

Goddard Space Flight Center No

Jet Propulsion Laboratory No

Johnson Space Center No

Kennedy Space Center Yes

Langley Research Center Yes

Marshall Space Flight Center Yes

Stennis Space Center Yes

The institutional CoF prioritization process categorizes and prioritizes Center projects by 

using a risk-based matrix, essentially a scoring system for facilities projects based on 

probability and consequence of occurrence, with the highest possible score of 5 for very 

high consequence by 5 for very high probability. For facilities projects to compete 

effectively for CoF funding, they have to score a high rating on the risk-based matrix, 

meaning that their failure has a high probability of catastrophic consequences in the near 

term. 

In addition to the risk-based matrix score, Headquarters further assesses CoF projects 

using secondary factors to prioritize among projects that have the same risk-based matrix 

score. These factors may include improved life-cycle costs; Center priority; and health, 

safety, and security and these factors may vary from year-to-year. Center officials told us 

the variable nature of these factors makes it difficult to incorporate them into planning for 

projects. In addition, although the CoF prioritization process occurs annually, we found 
RESULTS

14 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

that the process was not documented in NASA policy and that the submission 

requirements varied from year-to-year, making it difficult for Centers to effectively plan 

use of their CoF funding. 

According to Center officials, the use of the risk-based matrix coupled with secondary 

requirements that change frequently, forces them to submit the projects that are the most 

competitive instead of the projects Center officials believe are their highest priorities. 

Consequently, some Center officials said that they often prioritize projects based on the 

most degraded facilities rather than on what would be most useful for the Centers in 

meeting programmatic and Agency missions. According to FERP officials, the Centers 

are not restricted from submitting their top Center priorities, and noted that the annual 

CoF guidance requests that each Center submit an unconstrained list of institutional 

projects to support near term infrastructure requirements. However, Center officials said 

that the time and effort required to prepare an unconstrained list of projects is not 

worthwhile given the low likelihood such projects would be considered for funding. 

FERP officials told us that the CoF prioritization process was established to identify the 

Agency’s greatest needs and said they believe the process adequately accomplishes this 

goal, especially in light of the limited amount of CoF funding available. 

We acknowledge the need for appropriate oversight of the Centers’ CoF project requests 

to ensure that Agency-wide mission needs are met. We also realize that NASA is faced 

with challenging decisions when prioritizing institutional needs across the Agency. 

However, in our judgment a prioritization process that discourages Centers from 

submitting their top priorities – whether or not these priorities are ultimately funded –

leaves NASA managers without key information needed to assess and prioritize the real 

property needs of the Agency.

During the course of our audit, NASA Headquarters and Center officials revised the 

institutional CoF prioritization process for FY 2014. The revised process retains the riskbased matrix, but also solicits information regarding such factors as mission dependency, 

Center priority, and facility/system condition. Center officials believe the new process 

will be an improvement because the new guidance provides additional detail on assessing 

projects and includes risk assessment measures for the Centers to use when identifying 

risk and probability.

14

 14 In August 2011, the OIG reported that the data in NASA’s primary system for rating mission dependency 

and facility condition was unreliable for evaluating NASA’s real property assets. Based on that report, 

NASA management is making improvements to the guidance and process for rating mission dependency 

and facility condition. Report No. IG-11-024, “NASA Infrastructure and Facilities: Assessment of Data 

Used to Manage Real Property Assets,” August 4, 2011.

 We believe these improvements to the CoF prioritization process

are positive developments that will enable the Centers to better prioritize CoF projects 

based on a wider range of information. In our judgment, updating the new prioritization 

process in NASA policy would help facilitate implementation.
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 15

Conclusion

NASA faces significant infrastructure challenges as it works to meet current and future 

mission requirements and to comply with the 2010 NASA Authorization Act directive to 

reduce the Agency’s infrastructure to meet current and future missions and expected 

funding levels. Given these challenges, the Agency must effectively plan and prioritize 

its infrastructure needs. While development of NASA’s first Agency-wide master plan is 

a positive step toward addressing these challenges, we believe improved guidance is 

needed to facilitate the development of future updates to the plan. Moreover, until NASA

develops a plan that reflects current anticipated funding levels and is fully representative 

of the needs of the Agency and the Centers, it will be challenging for the Agency to 

prioritize its needs to ensure the vitality of its infrastructure and reduce its real property 

footprint. In addition, we question NASA’s “across the board” real property reduction 

strategy that requires the same level of reduction from each Center regardless of their

individual missions. We believe that with improved guidance on the Center master 

planning process and the institutional CoF prioritization process, NASA will be in a 

better position to produce a more comprehensive Agency master plan, which will support 

NASA officials in making strategic decisions regarding its real property assets, especially 

those decisions involving trade-offs between Centers.

Recommendations, Management’s Response, and Evaluation of 

Management’s Response

During our audit, NASA Headquarters and Center officials revised the institutional CoF 

prioritization process for FY 2014 to allow Center officials to prioritize CoF projects based 

on a wider range of information. In our judgment, stabilizing and documenting the new 

prioritization process in NASA policy will help facilitate its implementation. 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for the Mission Support Directorate direct 

the FERP Division to take the following actions to further improve NASA’s ability to make 

strategic decisions regarding management of its real property.

Recommendation 1. Provide clear guidance to the Centers on the information that should 

be included in Center master plans to ensure that key information is captured and consistent 

for all Centers. Information should include, at minimum, clear linkages between projects 

and Agency or Center goals, as well as information on all major institutional and 

programmatic CoF projects.

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

Directorate concurred with our recommendation, stating that he had directed the Assistant 

Administrator for Strategic Infrastructure to review and revise existing policies and 

processes to ensure that clear, consistent guidance is communicated to the Centers. He 

further stated that the Directorate is in the process of revising NPR 8810.1, Master 

Planning Procedural Requirements, to include changes that will outline clear 
RESULTS

16 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

requirements for Center master planning. Currently NPR 8810 is on the Agency review 

calendar for December 2011, and the Associate Administrator anticipates its approval by 

March 2012.

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 corrective actions. 

Recommendation 2. Ensure plans to reduce the Agency’s real property footprint more 

fully consider the specific missions of the individual Centers when setting real property 

reduction requirements.

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

directed the Assistant Administrator for Strategic Infrastructure to ensure that Centerspecific missions are considered when setting real property reduction requirements. He 

further stated that he will review the metrics for real property reductions and provide new 

guidance that will accommodate individual Center missions and real property attributes. 

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 corrective actions. 

Recommendation 3. Update NASA policy to better reflect the current risk-based process 

for prioritizing institutional CoF projects.

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

Assistant Administrator for Strategic Infrastructure is in the process of updating NPR 

8820.2F, Facility Project Requirements, to better reflect the budget formulation and 

risk-based process currently used for prioritizing CoF projects. He stated that he 

anticipates the NPR will be finalized by January 31, 2013. 

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 corrective actions. 

Other Matters

In his response to a draft of this report, the Associate Administrator stated that the OIG’s 

failure to make many of his office’s requested changes resulted in a report “that contains 

many inaccuracies.” Therefore, the Associate Administrator said, “while I concur with the 

recommendations, it should be noted that I do not concur with the report itself.” 

He specifically mentions in his response the OIG’s conclusion that the master planning 

process is based on funding assumptions that are no longer valid. He noted that in its 

technical comments his office had informed the OIG that the funding assumptions for the 

current Agency master plan were valid when the Centers began developing their plans, and 
RESULTS

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 17

that the current Agency master plan would serve as a baseline from which NASA can make 

deviations and decisions on future investments. 

We strongly disagree with the Associate Administrator’s assertion that our report contains 

inaccurate information. Consistent with our usual process, we carefully considered 

management’s technical comments to our draft and incorporated the information where 

appropriate. In addition, we followed the quality control procedures required by Federal 

government auditing standards, including submitting the report for an independent 

verification of the findings and supporting evidence. 

With regard to the example cited by the Associate Administrator, we agree that the Center 

master plans were developed based on funding assumptions valid at the time the plans were 

prepared, and we do not suggest otherwise in the report. Rather, the report simply points 

out that given the magnitude of the subsequent funding reductions, a master plan that 

reflects the projected funding levels expected in FYs 2013 through 2017 would better enable 

the Centers and the Agency to develop realistic plans to ensure the vitality of necessary 

infrastructure and reduce NASA’s real property footprint. Moreover, we specifically noted 

in the report that NASA officials expect that the Agency-wide master plan will provide a 

baseline to guide planning for the infrastructure needed to meet mission requirements. 

APPENDIXES

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 19

APPENDIX A

Scope and Methodology

We performed this audit from February 2011 through November 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 conclusion 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 has 

effective plans and processes in place to appropriately identify, prioritize, and administer 

construction projects in a manner that enhances the Agency’s ability to meet current and 

future mission requirements.

We performed work at NASA Headquarters, FERP Division, and Marshall Space Flight 

Center. We also sent a questionnaire and data call to the other nine NASA Centers:

• Ames Research Center

• Dryden Flight Research Center

• Glenn Research Center

• Goddard Space Flight Center

• Jet Propulsion Lab

• Johnson Space Center

• Kennedy Space Center

• Langley Research Center

• Stennis Space Center

We reviewed Federal and NASA policies and regulations to determine the requirements 

and criteria for assessing master planning documents and requirements for identifying 

and prioritizing CoF projects. The documents we reviewed included select NASA Center 

internal institutional CoF project requests as well as: 

“NASA Authorization Act of 2010,” Title XI, Public Law 111-267, October 2010

National Research Council, “Investments in Federal Facilities: Asset Management 

Strategies for the 21st Century,” 2004

NASA’s Strategic Plan, 2011

NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 8820.2C, “Design and Construction of Facilities,” June 

13, 2006 

NPR 8810.1, “Master Planning Procedural Requirements,” April 28, 2005
APPENDIX A

20 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

NPR 8810.2A, “Master Planning for Real Property,” December 09, 2009

NPR 8820.2F, “Facility Project Requirements,” January 28, 2008

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

We distributed a questionnaire to the Centers listed above, inquiring about each Center’s 

master planning process and their identification and prioritization process for CoF 

projects. We reviewed two documents that Headquarters required the Centers to develop 

as part of the FY 2010 master planning initiative: leadership briefing and Capital 

Investment Program Plan. The leadership briefing is a summarized version of a formal 

Center master plan in presentation slide format, and included a summary of metrics. The 

Capital Investment Program Plan incorporated what the Center expects to spend over the 

next 20 years, and should identify all investments planned by the institution or by 

programs regardless of funding source. In addition, we reviewed NASA’s FY 2010

through FY 2014 Capital Facilities Investment Program Data Call. We interviewed

representatives from the FERP Division to identify and discuss implementation of 

NASA’s master planning procedural requirements, NPR 8810.1. We also contacted 

officials with the Centers’ Facilities Management Offices to gain an understanding of 

each Center’s process for the master planning initiative.

Use of Computer-Processed Data. We used computer-processed data to perform this 

audit. We collected computer-processed data from the NASA Centers in the form of 

their master planning documentation developed during FY 2010. Specifically, we 

collected Capital Investment Program Plans from the NASA Centers developed for FY 

2013 through FY 2032. The Capital Investment Program Plan is maintained in Microsoft 

Excel format and can therefore be classified as computer-processed data. However, for 

our audit objectives we only reviewed the data to determine what types of projects the 

Centers included in their Capital Investment Program Plan (i.e., institutional and 

programmatic CoF projects, and recapitalization projects). Therefore, we did not rely 

solely on the computer-processed data to support our findings, conclusions, or 

recommendations.

Review of Internal Controls

We reviewed and evaluated the internal controls associated with developing the required 

Center master planning documents and identifying and prioritizing institutional CoF 

projects. Our review included a review and evaluation of the oversight and guidance 

provided by the FERP Division, to the Centers for these areas. We also reviewed the 

internal controls associated with the processes used by NASA Headquarters to prioritize 

Center CoF projects for funding. We found deficiencies in these areas, as discussed in 

this report.
APPENDIX A

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 21

Prior Coverage

During the last 5 years, the NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG), the GAO, and the 

National Research Council have issued four 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

“NASA Infrastructure And Facilities: Assessment of Data Used to Manage Real Property 

Assets” (IG-11-024, August 4, 2011)

“NASA's Hanger One Re-Siding Project” (IG-11-020, June 22, 2011)

Government Accountability Office

“High Risk Series: Federal Real Property: Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, 

but Underlying Obstacles Continue to Hamper Reform” (GAO-07-349, April 2007)

National Research Council

“Investments in Federal Facilities: Asset Management Strategies for the 21st Century” 

(2004)
APPENDIX B 

22 REPORT NO. IG-12-008 

MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
APPENDIX B 

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 23
APPENDIX C

24 REPORT NO. IG-12-008

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 Directorate

Assistant Administrator for the Office of Strategic Infrastructure 

Acting Director, Technical Capabilities and Real Property Division

Acting Director, Facilities Engineering Division

Director, Ames Research Center

Director, Dryden Flight Research Center

Director, Glenn Research Center

Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Director, Jet Propulsion Lab

Director, Johnson Space Center

Director, Kennedy Space Center

Director, Langley Research Center

Director, Marshall Space Flight Center

Director, Stennis Space 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
APPENDIX C

REPORT NO. IG-12-008 25

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-12-008 27

Major Contributors to the Report:

Ridge Bowman, Director, Infrastructure and Facilities Management Directorate

Karen VanSant, Project Manager

Susan Bachle, Lead Auditor

Amy Bannister, Auditor

Rebecca Carpenter, Management Analyst
DECEMBER 19, 2011

REPORT No. IG-12-008

OFFICE OF AUDITS

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

ADDITIONAL COPIES

Visit http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY12/ 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.