LARGE FACILITIES MANUAL

May 2007

NSF 07-38
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1

II. PLANNING AND MANAGING FOR THE MREFC APPROPRIATION .................... 4

INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................4

DEFINITION OF THE MREFC APPROPRIATION....................................................................................4

ELIGIBILITY FOR MREFC FUNDING.......................................................................................................4

THE MREFC PROCESS...........................................................................................................................5

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STAGE..............................................................................................................9

PRELIMINARY DESIGN/READINESS STAGE ......................................................................................17

NSB APPROVAL/FINAL DESIGN STAGE..............................................................................................21

CONSTRUCTION STAGE ......................................................................................................................23

POST-CONSTRUCTION STAGES.........................................................................................................26

III. PLANNING AND MANAGING LARGE FACILITY PROJECTS NOT FUNDED BY

THE MREFC ACCOUNT .............................................................................................. 29

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................29

PRE-CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT...................................................................31

IV. DETAILED CONSIDERATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS...................................... 32

BUDGETING AND FUNDING .................................................................................................................32

SYSTEM INTEGRATION, COMMISSIONING, TESTING AND ACCEPTANCE ....................................36

PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE.....................................37

PROCEDURES FOR RENEWAL OR TERMINATION OF AN OPERATING LARGE FACILITY............38

DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS ..................................................................................................39

REQUIREMENTS FOR OVERSIGHT, REVIEWS AND REPORTING ...................................................40

PARTNERSHIPS ....................................................................................................................................44

V. SPECIAL TOPICS AND SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS .................................. 47

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF NSF STAFF INVOLVED IN THE MANAGEMENT AND

OVERSIGHT OF LARGE FACILITIES....................................................................................................47

RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE.................................................................................................................47

DEFINITION AND USE OF CONTINGENCY RESOURCES IN NSF FACILITY CONSTRUCTION.......48

GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT EXECUTION PLANS FOR LARGE FACILITIES..48

GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR LARGE FACILITIES

................................................................................................................................................................48

GUIDELINES FOR IT SECURITY OF NSF'S LARGE FACILITIES.........................................................48

GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND EXECUTING EXTERNAL REVIEWS OF NSF'S LARGE

FACILITIES.............................................................................................................................................49

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN LARGE FACILITY PLANNING ..........................................49

TIMELINE FOR PLANNING AND MANAGING THE MREFC ACCOUNT...............................................49

GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................49

GUIDELINES FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT....................................................................................50

GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING TOTAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS REVIEWS OF NSF’S LARGE

FACILITIES.............................................................................................................................................50

GUIDELINES FOR USE OF OMB INFLATORS IN PLANNING CONSTRUCTION OF LARGE FACILITY

PROJECTS.............................................................................................................................................50

VI. APPENDICES ........................................................................................................ 51

APPENDIX 1 - NSF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.............................................................................51

APPENDIX 2 - RANKING CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING MREFC PROJECTS......................................53
iii

APPENDIX 3 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS OF A CONSTRUCTION-READY PROJECT

EXECUTION PLAN .................................................................................................................................54

APPENDIX 4 - NSF FACILITY PLAN .........................................................................................................55

APPENDIX 5 – SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR LARGE FACILITY

PROJECTS (DDLFP)..............................................................................................................................56

VII. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 57

VIII.LIST OF ACRONYMS............................................................................................ 58
1

I. Introduction

Facilities are an essential part of the science and engineering enterprise, and supporting them is

one major responsibility of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Facilities may be centralized or may consist of distributed installations. They may incorporate

large-scale networking or computational infrastructure; multi-user instruments or networks of

such instruments; or other infrastructure, instrumentation and equipment having a major impact

on a broad segment of a scientific or engineering discipline. Historically, awards have been

made for such diverse projects as accelerators, telescopes, vessels, aircraft and geographically

distributed but networked earthquake engineering simulation equipment.

NSF makes awards to external entities – primarily universities, consortia of universities or nonprofit organizations – to undertake construction, management and operation of facilities. Such

awards frequently take the form of cooperative agreements.1 With the sole exception of NSF’s

facilities in Antarctica, for which the Foundation acquires construction, operating and

maintenance2services, NSF does not directly construct or operate the facilities it supports.

However, NSF “has overall responsibility for NSF-funded awards, including providing award

oversight for technical and programmatic, and financial and administrative performance.” (NSF

Cooperative Agreement Financial and Administrative Terms and Conditions (FATC), Article 2.)

This Manual is intended to:

 provide step-by-step guidance for NSF staff and awardees to carry out effective project

planning, management, and oversight of large facilities, recognizing that different kinds

of projects may require different approaches;

 clearly state the policies, requirements, and recommended procedures pertinent at each

stage of a facility’s life cycle – from conception to construction/acquisition, operations,

renewal, and/or phase-out and termination; and

 document the practices identified over many years that enable NSF program officials to

ensure accountability and carry out their responsibilities more effectively.

Various provisions of this Manual apply to the following kinds of projects:

 large facilities that have been or will be constructed or acquired with funds from the

Major Research Equipment and Facility Construction (MREFC) appropriation;

 large facilities or infrastructure projects that have been or will be constructed or acquired

with funds provided through the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) and/or

Education and Human Resources (EHR) appropriations; and

 existing facilities for which operation and replacement cost would be similar in size to

MREFC-funded and MREFC-eligible projects.

1

“An executive agency shall use a cooperative agreement as the legal instrument reflecting a relationship between

the U.S. Government and a ... recipient when 1) the principal purpose of the relationship is to transfer a thing of

value to the ... recipient to carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by a law of the United

States instead of acquiring ... property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government; and

2) substantial involvement is expected between the executive agency and the ... recipient when carrying out the

activity contemplated in the agreement. (31 U.S.C. §6305.) Substantial involvement “refers to federal participation

in the performance of the activity“ (Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition, Volume II, p. 10-16). See

NSF Grant Proposal Guide and NSF Grant Policy Manual for detailed information on awards.

2

“The Foundation shall not, itself, operate any laboratories or pilot plants.“ (42 U.S.C.§1873(b))
2

NSF supports facility construction from two appropriations: the MREFC appropriation and the

R&RA appropriation.3 The MREFC appropriation is available “for necessary expenses for the

acquisition, construction, commissioning and upgrading of major research equipment, facilities

and other such capital assets pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as

amended, including authorized travel.” (Science, State, Justice, Commerce and Related

Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 109-108, Title III (2006)). Generally MREFC projects

range in cost from tens of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars expended over a multi-year

period. The R&RA account can be used to support other activities involving an MREFC-funded

facility that the MREFC account cannot support, including planning, conceptual design,

development, operations and maintenance, and scientific research. Construction and

acquisition projects at a smaller scale, usually of a scale ranging from millions to tens of millions

of dollars, are also normally supported from the R&RA account.

This Manual replaces the Facilities Management and Oversight Guide, published in 2003, and

reflects recent changes to requirements and recommended procedures by which MREFC

candidate projects are identified, developed, prioritized and selected.4 The principles motivating

these changes also apply to smaller-scale facilities funded through the R&RA account.

Procedures should be modified appropriately to fit the needs of each facility.

This Manual does not replace existing formal procedures required for all NSF awards, which are

described in the Grant Proposal Guide and Grant Policy Manual. Instead, it draws upon and

supplements them for the purpose of providing detailed guidance regarding NSF management

and oversight of facilities projects. The requirements, recommended procedures, and practices

presented here apply to any facility large enough to require interaction with the National Science

Board (NSB) or any facility designated by the Director, the Deputy Director, or the assistant

director (AD) or office head of the originating organization(s)5as being subject to them. For all

other facilities, NSF staff members should use their judgment in scaling the requirements and

recommended procedures for specific projects.

This Manual will be updated periodically to reflect changes in requirements and/or policies.

Program officers (PO) are encouraged and expected to continue to identify and adopt best

practices aimed at improving management and oversight of large facilities projects and at

enabling the most efficient and cost-effective delivery of tools to the research and education

communities.

3

Funding for facility or large-scale infrastructure construction/acquisition could come from the Education and Human

Resources (EHR) account. There are no current or pending requests. Nevertheless, EHR often works in partnership

with the various NSF science and engineering directorates and offices to leverage their investments in infrastructure

development and research activities to support education and promote access to science and engineering facilities

for educational purposes.

4

See the Joint National Science Board-National Science Foundation Management Report: Setting Priorities for Large

Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation (NSB-05-77); September 2005.

5

See Appendix 1 for definition of this and other key terms. Appendix 1 describes the NSF organizations and officers

that are involved throughout the conception, development, approval and implementation of an MREFC project.

Readers not familiar with NSF and its processes should review this material before proceeding.
3

USING THIS DOCUMENT

The Manual is organized as follows:

 Chapter II describes the process and principles NSF uses to plan, construct and operate

large facilities funded using the MREFC account. An earlier version of this chapter was

released as a stand-alone document in November 2005.

 Chapter III applies the basic principles and process described in Chapter II to the

(usually smaller scale) facilities constructed or acquired with funding from the R&RA

account, and highlights differences from MREFC procedures. The intent here is to allow

significant flexibility to adapt the underlying principles to meet the requirements and

scope of any particular project.

 Chapter IV is a compendium of detailed requirements and considerations NSF uses to

implement the principles and procedures described in Chapters II and III. It is adapted

and updated from the materials contained in the Facilities Management and Oversight

Guide published in July 2003.

 Chapter V contains extensive supplementary information on specific topics concerning

NSF’s role in the planning and oversight of large facility projects. It consists of

hyperlinked sections, updated periodically, containing important explanatory and

procedural information, presented in a tutorial format that should be of particular benefit

to individuals who are newly involved with large facility projects.6

This Manual is intended for use by NSF staff and by external proponents of large facility projects

for use in planning.

Owing to the rigor of merit review, constraints on funds, changing priorities, and competing

interests of NSF and the research community, only a limited number of projects will proceed

successfully through all stages described below. To improve the possibility of success, facility

advocates should be thoroughly familiar with the entire contents of this Manual even if the

proposed project is in the earliest stages of formulation. Anticipating downstream requirements

will dramatically improve the efficiency of the process.

6 Chapter 5 will be updated as need arises to include additional modules, with the intent to provide to NSF and the

research communities a single reference location for all relevant policies and procedures.
4

II. Planning and Managing for the MREFC Appropriation

INTRODUCTION

NSF investments provide state-of-the art infrastructure for research and education, such as

laboratory and field instrumentation and equipment, multi-user research facilities, distributed

instrumentation networks and arrays, and mobile research platforms. In addition, investment is

increasing in highly sophisticated information technology (IT)-based infrastructure, including

distributed sensor networks, extensive data-storage and transmission capabilities, advanced

computing resources, and Internet-based distributed user facilities.7

The MREFC Appropriation supports a subset of these investments. This chapter provides

guidelines for planning and managing facilities supported through that account. Because each

facility has unique aspects, each project necessarily requires a unique adaptation of general

principles. NSF promotes flexibility in the application of these guidelines, but requires

justification and substantiation for the specific approach taken in each case. That is

accomplished through the processes of formal planning, documentation and review described

below.

DEFINITION OF THE MREFC APPROPRIATION

In 1995 Congress established the Major Research Equipment appropriation. This appropriation

became the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction in NSF’s Fiscal Year 2002

appropriation. The MREFC account funds “necessary expenses for the acquisition,

construction, commissioning, and upgrading of major research equipment, facilities, and other

such capital assets pursuant to the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended.”

(Science, State, Justice, Commerce, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No.

109-108. Title III (2006).) The MREFC account is intended to prevent the large expenditures

required for major facilities from disrupting the budgets of NSF directorates and threatening

NSF’s traditional support of “core” research programs.

ELIGIBILITY FOR MREFC FUNDING

To be eligible for consideration for MREFC funding, each candidate project should represent an

outstanding opportunity to enable research and innovation, as well as education and broader

societal impacts. Each project should offer the possibility of transformative knowledge and the

potential to shift existing paradigms in scientific understanding, engineering processes and/or

infrastructure technology. Moreover, each should serve an urgent contemporary research and

education need that will persist for years beyond the often lengthy process of planning and

development.

In addition, a candidate project should:

(i) be consistent with the goals, strategies and priorities of the NSF Strategic Plan;

(ii) establish a long-term tools capability accessible to an appropriately broad community

of users on the basis of merit;

7

These resources, many of which are now in development, are collectively known as “cyberinfrastructure.”
5

(iii) require large investments for construction/acquisition, over a limited period of time,

such that the project cannot be supported within one or more NSF

directorate(s)/office(s) without severe financial disruption of their portfolios of

activities;

(iv) have received strong endorsement of the appropriate science and engineering

communities, based upon a thorough external review, including an assessment of (1)

scientific and engineering research merit, (2) broader societal impacts, (3)

importance and priority within the relevant Science and Engineering (S&E)

communities, (4) technical and engineering feasibility,

and (5) management, cost, and schedule issues;

(v) be of sufficient importance that the originating

organization8is prepared to fully fund the costs of preconstruction planning, design and development,

operation and maintenance, and associated

programmatic activities (with full awareness that, for a

long-lived facility, operations costs may ultimately

amount to many times the construction costs); and

(vi) have been coordinated with other organizations,

agencies and countries to ensure complementarity and

integration of objectives and potential opportunities for

collaboration and sharing of costs.

THE MREFC PROCESS

As the diagram on Page 8 indicates, pre-construction planning and development for MREFC

candidate projects progress through a sequence of stages of increasing investment, planning,

assessment and oversight. Among other uses, these stages ensure that the technical evolution

of a candidate project is coordinated with NSF requirements, thus increasing the likelihood that

it will be able to qualify for funding for further planning and eventual construction.

MREFC projects cover a wide range of disciplines and activities in science and engineering, and

they can require rather different approaches to the development and ultimate acquisition of

facilities, equipment and/or infrastructure. The approach described in this Manual is derived

largely from experience with construction projects defined by the following characteristics:

 they serve a relatively large community or a large collaboration, whose members have

organized and agreed upon the basic parameters of the project; and

 they result from proposals to NSF, either unsolicited or through an NSF solicitation,

proposing to construct the particular equipment or infrastructure; and

8

See Appendix 1 for definition of this and other key terms. Appendix 1 describes the NSF organizations and officers

that are involved throughout the conception, development, approval and implementation of an MREFC project.

Readers not familiar with NSF and its processes should review this material before proceeding.

Eligibility:

The total cost of

construction and/or

acquisition of a proposed

MREFC project typically

represents an investment

greater than 10 percent

of the annual budget of

the proposing directorate

or office.

Note:

42 U.S.C.1862n-4(c) provides, “No national research facility project funded under the major

research equipment and facilities construction account shall be managed by an individual

whose appointment to the Foundation is temporary.”
6

 Operations of the equipment or infrastructure are carried out by the entity that proposes

its construction or by some other entity in cases where the operations expertise may not

necessarily reside with the construction team.

However, because NSF supports investigation at the frontiers of understanding, where specific

research targets and methodology often are not firmly established, some candidate projects

may need to progress in ways that are less neatly well-defined than the prototypical cases

described above. The guidelines in this Manual allow for such cases.

For example, NSF may fund communities to do planning for future facilities. Because NSF is

responsible for supporting basic scientific and engineering research, it provides funding

sufficient for researchers to develop compelling research agendas, to refine and prioritize their

facility requirements, and to complete research and development on facility designs and needed

technologies. Such projects will be subject to merit review to ensure that candidate new

facilities represent a high priority of the researchers in that discipline.

In all cases, NSF is committed to the principle that flexibility does not preclude rigor. Every

MREFC candidate project – including those that call for novel treatment – is subject to the

highest standards of merit review and evaluation.

A project’s lifetime is characterized by the following life-cycle stages:

(i) facility/infrastructure concept development;

(ii) project development;

(iii) project construction/acquisition;

(iv) facility/infrastructure operation; and

(v) facility/infrastructure renewal, upgrade or phase-out/termination.

(Points at which there may be departure from the MREFC process outlined here should be

identified early in the project development through an NSF Internal Management Plan,

described below on page 10 and in further detail in the module referenced on page 48.)

Each life-cycle stage entails different actions appropriate to the development of the project, the

review and approval needed to obtain NSF funding, and the development of NSF budgets to

support these activities. Entry and exit from each stage are clearly defined, including required

documents and deliverables.

In the early stages of a project, there should be sufficient investment so that the project is well

defined when proposed by the originating organization(s) for construction funding. Careful

planning minimizes the risk of significant alterations to the initial budget, scope, and schedule

after the NSB approves the project for inclusion in a future NSF budget request.

As in all NSF endeavors, inquiry begins with the research communities, whose members alert

NSF program staff to the most promising and exciting questions and the tools or facilities

needed to explore them.

NSF POs, who work closely with those communities, should be attentive to the emergence of

breakthrough concepts and actively encourage discussion and planning. In addition, NSF uses

National Academies' studies, community workshop reports, professional society activities,

directorate advisory committees, and many other methods, to identify opportunities and ensure

continuous community input.
7

Ideas and opportunities identified by the research communities typically have a five- to 20-year

forward look and are brought to NSF in a submitted proposal. When there are competing

concepts, it may be appropriate for NSF to issue a solicitation inviting proposals.

In most cases, program staff will take a proactive role in facilitating proposal submission, merit

review, recommendations, and decision. In so doing, however, a PO should maintain the

position of a neutral, unbiased agent of NSF. Project advocacy comes from the community,

which also participates in the merit review process.
8
9

CONCEPTUAL DESIGN STAGE

The goal of this first stage of the MREFC process is the creation of a comprehensive

Conceptual Design that clearly articulates project elements that NSF will consider, including:

 definition and relative prioritization of the research objectives and science questions the

proposed facility will address;

 site-independent description of the research infrastructure and technical requirements

needed to meet the science (technical requirements normally flow down from the

science);

 system-level design, including definition of all functional requirements and major

systems;

 budget and contingency estimates appropriate to a Conceptual Design;9

 initial concept for a construction and commissioning schedule;

 initial risk analysis and mitigation strategy for construction, identifying enabling

technologies, high-risk or long-lead items, and Research and Development (R&D)

needed to reduce project risk to acceptable levels;

 potential environmental and safety impacts to be considered in site selection (see

"Compliance with Environmental and Related Statues," page 16 below);

 description of the scope of work, budget and schedule needed to continue planning the

project to bring it to the next stage, Preliminary Design;

 plan for project management, including description of possibilities for international and

interagency partnering; and

 initial estimate of annual operations and maintenance funding that will be needed if the

facility is constructed and operated.

Completion of the Conceptual Design Stage also requires production of a draft Project

Execution Plan (PEP),10 described in detail on Page 12 below. The entire process typically

takes several years, during which there are different – but complementary and coordinated –

responsibilities and activities for the community, NSF program staff and participating entities (for

example: other agencies, foreign governments, and private foundations).

Conceptual Design Stage Activities:

(1) Community Activities. As soon as possible, proponents of a project should provide NSF with

an Early Concept Proposal that makes a compelling case for the research that would

necessitate development of a facility, and that describes, in general terms, its essential

characteristics.

These earliest plans identify what is known at that point in project development, as well as what

tasks remain to be accomplished in order for NSF to consider a project for eventual funding. In

9

The budget information should be provided using a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) format, identifying the basis

for estimates and including a WBS dictionary that defines the scope associated with each WBS element.

Contingency estimates should include an explanation of the methodology used to calculate the estimate.

10 The PEP, like the corresponding Project Development Plan (PDP) described below, is an evolving document that

usually passes through a succession of revisions as project scope and requirements are refined and cost estimates

become more accurate.
10

the near term, they also define what work should be done to develop a project plan to the

Conceptual Design level of maturity.

Early in this stage, an NSF PO will be assigned to be the primary point of contact with the

research community to ensure that NSF reacts appropriately to community needs. At the

earliest opportunity, the PO should organize a Project Advisory Team (PAT)11 to provide advice

and counsel on the project.

The NSF PO conducts a merit review of the proponents’ Early Concept Proposal, and

encourages further development by the proponents of a Conceptual Design if the reviews are

favorable. As the project evolves, the PO and others report on the status of activities to NSF’s

MREFC Panel – a committee consisting of agency senior management and other relevant staff

– on a regular basis.

Proponents should acquaint themselves with NSF’s expectations for the essential elements of a

construction-ready PEP as described in Appendix 3. Proponents should also develop a skeletal

plan that will result in the future definition of each of these elements, should NSF encourage

further pre-construction planning. The plan should address, even if only in the most cursory

way, each of the essential elements that should be realized in a formal construction-ready PEP.

For example, proponents may wish to develop a “straw man” PEP that contains sections labeled

using each of the entries in Appendix 3, but with little or no supporting information provided.

This serves simply to inform all parties of the range and magnitude of the tasks ahead.

(2) NSF Staff Activities. In response to the development of an early version of a PEP, the PO,

with the advice of the PAT, develops an Internal Management Plan (IMP).12

This internal document specifies how NSF will conduct management and oversight of a project,

and provides budgetary estimates for developing, constructing and operating the facility. It also

identifies critical issues and risks facing the project (for example: project management issues,

completing essential R&D activities, partnership agreements, termination liabilities) and lays out

a strategy for financing these activities as well as concomitant NSF oversight requirements.

The PO develops the IMP with advice and assistance from the Deputy Director for Large Facility

Projects (DDLFP),13 the PAT and other NSF staff. Following consultation, review and approval

within the sponsoring NSF division and directorate or office, and upon approval of the IMP by

the cognizant NSF assistant director or office head, the IMP is formally reviewed by the

Facilities Panel.14 The Facilities Panel is chaired by the DDLFP and includes other NSF staff

members experienced in the technical and administrative aspects of large project oversight.

The Facilities Panel provides written comments on the IMP, which become part of the review

record and are available to the PO, the originating organization(s), the MREFC Panel and the

Director.

The IMP describes the plan for NSF funding the project to Conceptual Design Review (CDR),

proposes transitional steps to be taken if the project is admitted to the Preliminary

11 See Appendix 1 for a description of Project Advisory Teams. See also the module “Roles and Responsibilities of

NSF Staff Involved in the Management and Oversight of Large Facilities,” described on page 47.

12 See the “Guidelines for Development of Internal Management Plans for Large Facilities,” described on page 48, for

a full description of the IMP and what is included within it.

13 Located in NSF’s office of Budget, Finance and Award Management. See Appendix 5.

14 The composition of the Facilities Panel described below in Appendix 1.
11

Design/Readiness Stage, and lays out NSF’s plan to oversee development of the project

through CDR and internal review.

The IMP is an internal document that informs NSF of how the principles for sound project

management and effective NSF oversight will be applied to a particular project. However, each

large project undertaken by NSF has unique characteristics. Accordingly, these principles

should be flexibly adapted to meet the specific needs of a particular project. The IMP states the

justification for pursuing alternatives to the guidelines contained in this chapter.

(3) Funding Considerations. Early in the Conceptual Design stage, NSF and/or other

institutions begin to invest research and development funds in conceptual development and

design, and in efforts that promote community building and planning. Typically this investment

is about one-third of the total pre-construction planning budget, but the proportion can vary.15

The total pre-construction investment in research, planning and development may range from

five to 25 percent of total construction cost, depending on the complexity of the project, and

typically amounts to about 10 percent. The technology needed to construct a facility may be

uncertain, unproven or immature, requiring substantial R&D over a period of years.

Upon merit review of unsolicited and/or solicited proposals, NSF may fund planning and other

development efforts for particularly promising concepts.16 Such activities might include

workshops in one or more disciplines, National Academies’ studies, and research projects

related to the development of new technologies.17 NSF funding opportunities may extend to a

proposal (or proposals) for development and completion of the project Conceptual Design.

Exit from the Conceptual Design Stage:

This stage is complete when a proposal containing the Conceptual Design and a plan and

funding request leading to a Preliminary Design is received, reviewed and approved for funding.

The proposal should include: the conceptual design, analyses of how the design satisfies

science requirements, the supporting infrastructure description, a management plan, budget

and contingency estimates, risk analysis, potential environmental impacts, description of

partnering opportunities, and other relevant information. As in the initial “skeletal plan,”

developed contemporaneously with the Early Concept Proposal, every topic contained in a full

construction proposal should be addressed at the completion of Conceptual Design, even if only

to identify what is not known at that point.18

The proposal should also include a preliminary PEP. NSF will subject the proposal to external

merit review, applying the first ranking criteria for prioritizing MREFC projects (scientific and

technical merit) as well as NSF’s standard merit review criteria. Projects that review well will be

15 Some projects come to NSF very well developed, requiring little in the way of conceptual design stage support.

They are subjected to rigorous scrutiny as they progress through various stages of development and review.

16 Relevant program solicitations may be released to announce funding opportunities for these planning and

development efforts.

17 NSF encourages disciplinary and interdisciplinary science planning by all of the research communities that NSF

supports. In particular, NSF encourages formal planning in fields in which scientists and engineers have traditionally

not been organized to identify MREFC projects needed for breakthrough advances.

18 Components of a construction-ready Project Execution Plan, which should be fully completed by the time a final

design is reached, are provided in Appendix 3.
12

further evaluated by NSF to apply the second ranking criteria (agency strategic fit), in

accordance with the principles stated in the joint NSB/NSF Management Report: Setting

Priorities for Large Research Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation (NSB-05-

77). (See Appendix 2 for discussion of ranking criteria.)

At a minimum, the following components of a PEP should be included within the proposal:

 definition and relative prioritization of the research objectives and science questions that

the proposed facility will address;

 comprehensive statement of the science requirements to be fulfilled by the proposed

facility (to the extent possible identifying minimum essential as well as desirable

quantitative requirements), providing a basis for determining the project’s design goals

and the associated infrastructure requirements;

 description of the research infrastructure needed to meet the science objectives;

 system-level, site-independent design, including definition of all functional requirements

and major systems;

 analysis of technical feasibility;

 budget and contingency estimates appropriate to a Conceptual Design19 level of detail.

The budget should be presented in a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS)

20 format and

include a WBS dictionary describing the intended scope of each WBS element and the

basis for each estimate. Contingency budgeting, also presented in a WBS format,

should result from an initial risk analysis of each WBS element. The risk analysis

methodology should be described.

 initial estimates of the budget required for future operation of the proposed facility; and

 description of the scope of work, budget and schedule needed to continue planning the

project to arrive at a Preliminary Design. This plan should include the proponents’

intended course of action to obtain and apply suitable project management expertise to

direct the proposed design, development and construction planning activities.

Other topics that should be included, depending on the specific nature of the project, are:

 description of work that should be done to establish technical feasibility, including

description of high-risk technologies;

 Identification of long-lead-time items that pace the development of the design or

construction of the facility;

 role of interagency, non-governmental or international partners in future planning and

development and/or construction;

 configuration management (maintaining the project baseline and monitoring carefully all

changes that may provide at best marginal gains, but may result in delaying the project)

and change control (the formal process by which changes to the cost, schedule and

technical baseline scope are approved) during design evolution;

19 The budget information should be provided using a WBS format, identify the basis for estimate, and include a WBS

dictionary that defines the scope associated with each WBS element. Contingency estimates should include an

explanation of the methodology used to calculate the estimate.

20 A work breakdown structure (WBS) contains a product-oriented grouping of project tasks that organizes and

defines the total scope of the project. The WBS is a hierarchical framework that organizes and documents individual

project components representing work to be accomplished, aggregating the smallest levels of detail into a unified

project description. WBS integrates and relates all project work (cost, schedule and scope) and is used throughout

the project management to identify and monitor project process. The project budget and contingency are defined by

WBS element. A WBS dictionary describes the intended scope of each element, the basis of estimate for budget

entries, and the methodology for calculating contingency for that element.
13

 plans for system integration, commissioning, testing and acceptance of the facility;

 plans for transitioning from construction and commissioning into operation;

 liabilities at the end of facility life for site remediation, decontamination, etc. where

appropriate;

 environmental, safety and health issues that may arise in all project phases; and

 quality assurance and quality control requirements and description of processes.

In addition, the following topics may be applicable and/or useful to NSF in its assessment of a

project’s suitability for advancement to the Preliminary Design/Readiness Stage:

 initial concept for a construction and commissioning schedule;

 initial risk analysis and mitigation strategy for construction;

 potential environmental and safety impacts to be considered in site selection;

 anticipated funding profile and cash-flow analysis during construction;

 plan for project management during construction; and

 initial estimate of annual operations and maintenance funding that will be needed if the

facility is constructed and operated.

Finally, projects completing the Conceptual Design Stage will also be required to produce a

Project Development Plan (PDP)21 that describes the work to be undertaken by the proponents

to bring the project to the Readiness Stage.

Formal exit from the Conceptual Design Stage typically entails three NSF actions.

(1) Review and Approval of the Conceptual Design. NSF will conduct a CDR,22 which includes

assessment of the scientific, technical and project-management aspects of the project plan.

This review may, as appropriate, involve external experts, consulting firms, and in-house

expertise in the science, technology and business communities to scrutinize and validate the

supporting planning documents.

The review is organized and conducted by the NSF PO in consultation with DDLFP. At this

point, the conceptual design baseline is likely to have significant uncertainties. Contingency

estimates, representing work scope not yet defined but nevertheless essential to the completion

of the project, will be a significant fraction of the total project budget estimate. Significant

unknowns and uncertainties often remain to be addressed in more advanced stages of planning

and development. The conceptual design, system requirements, supporting budget estimates,

risk analysis, and forecasts of interagency and international partnerships should be detailed

enough for NSF program officials to decide whether the project concept warrants further funding

for development.

(2) Assessment and Prioritization of the proposed facility by the AD or office head of the

sponsoring directorate or office. The AD or office head relies on community inputs, disciplinespecific studies, advisory committee recommendations and internal NSF considerations to

prioritize the opportunities represented by the project relative to competing opportunities and

21 In general, a PDP provides a work plan for the development phase of a project, including budget, schedule, scope

of work and risk assessment.

22 NSF uses the same definition of CDR as the research community proposing the facility, recognizing that there are

discipline-specific differences in this definition. It is generally understood to mean a definition of the research

questions the facility is intended to answer, the functional requirements of the proposed facility, definition of the major

subsystems included in the facility, and a site-independent design with parametric cost and contingency estimates.
14

demands for resources. If, in the judgment of the AD or office head, the scientific merit and

relative importance of the proposed facility are sufficiently strong to justify advancement of the

project into the Readiness Stage, the PO is authorized to proceed with organizing the

development of a PDP and with updating the IMP to lay out how NSF will oversee and fund

further development.

 The PDP describes in detail the scope of work to be undertaken by the proponents to

bring the project to a Preliminary Design level of maturity, a schedule for doing so, the

project proponents’ estimates for the required budget, and an assessment of risk.

 The IMP describes plans for oversight, key decision points, and a budget plan for

supporting the activity during the Readiness Stage, in which the Preliminary Design is

developed. The PO also includes an analysis of development risks to the project. In

addition to technical, environmental and programmatic risks, these include analysis of

partnering opportunities, competition from other programs, and other NSF-specific

issues. “Not-to-exceed” cost guidance for construction and anticipated operating costs

are defined by NSF during ongoing development of the PDP and IMP.23

When (1) a candidate MREFC project has undergone a successful review of the formal

proposal(s), conceptual design and the PEP, (2) NSF has conducted merit review of the PDP,

and (3) the IMP has been endorsed by the AD or head of the sponsoring directorate or office,

the project may be considered for entry into the Preliminary Design/Readiness Stage.

(3) Formal Recommendation for Support. The directorate or office is required to submit a

memorandum to the MREFC Panel recommending the project for support, explaining how it

meets the requirements for MREFC funding and how it satisfies the following criteria:

 the project’s science (research) program addresses one or more science objectives in

the current NSF Facility Plan, clearly demonstrating a significant need for the project;

 the project has been reviewed by the research community and by NSF, in consultation

with directorate Advisory Committees, and has been assigned a very high priority;24

 the project’s CDR indicates that: (1) the engineering design and construction plans are

appropriately defined at the conceptual design level of project maturity and that the

management plans and budget estimates for further planning and development, as well

as constructing and operating the facility, are reasonable; (2) the sponsoring directorate

endorses the IMP and PDP for further development to the Preliminary Design/Readiness

Stage; (3) the technology to create the facility exists or can exist shortly, and can be

used without excessive risk; (4) other risks to development are satisfactorily defined and

minimized, or otherwise addressed in the IMP and PDP;25 and (5) there are no better

alternatives to the facility (i.e., with a better mix of cost and quality) that would address

the science objectives in a timely manner.

Copies of the approved CDR – along with the IMP, PDP, Facilities Panel memoranda and

proposal merit review evaluations – should accompany this memorandum. All materials are

transmitted to the MREFC Panel by the AD or office head of the sponsoring directorate or office.

On the basis of this documentation, and discussions with NSF program staff, the MREFC Panel

23 At each subsequent stage in the MREFC process (i.e., at Preliminary Design and Final Design completion), the

IMP is updated to define NSF’s project-specific expectations for readiness – including budget, schedule, decision

points, and “not-to-exceed” cost guidance that are determining factors in continued NSF support.

24 Evaluation by NSF includes external merit review, using the NSF merit review criteria and the 1st ranking Criteria in

Appendix 2 and evaluation by the MREFC Panel, using the 2nd ranking Criteria.

25 This judgment is based upon information supplied by the PO, the originating organization, and the DDLFP.
15

reviews candidate projects, assessing the relative merit of the candidate scientific or

engineering research facility in comparison to other projects and opportunities competing for

NSF resources, and recommends to the Director those projects that should move into the

Preliminary Design/Readiness Stage.26

The Director evaluates the IMP to ensure that the resources NSF proposes to commit towards

further development are adequately matched to the anticipated scope of work, risks, partnering

possibilities and other considerations related to further development. If satisfied, the Director

approves the Preliminary Design Stage IMP and then decides which projects should move into

this stage. These projects are then included in the Facility Plan, which is released annually.

The NSB is asked to concur with the Director’s decisions by approving the annual Facility Plan.

26 When an originating organization(s) proposes more than one candidate project for consideration by the Panel

within a two-year time frame, it should prioritize its slate of projects and provide a rationale for its recommendations to

the Director.
16

Compliance with Environmental and Related Statutes

NSF’s funding of awardees for the construction or modification of facilities, vessels or research

structures may trigger compliance with several federal statutes designed to protect the Nation’s

environmental, cultural and historic resources.

These laws include, but are not limited to, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and the Endangered Species Act. Furthermore, there are

international agreements and treaties that deal with environmental impacts. Determining the

required level of compliance activities – including what documentation, consultation and/or permits

may be required – is a complex task. The PO should not attempt to determine the extent of

compliance requirements without consulting NSF’s office of the General Counsel. Failure to take

necessary steps can cause undue delays in a project’s schedule, significant cost escalation, and

potential federal litigation.

NEPA compliance may require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) in cases where

no significant environmental impacts are expected, or the more extensive documentation of an

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) where significant effects are anticipated. The preparation

costs of such documents can range from $25,000 to more than $1 million, and may take six months

to more than several years to complete.

Additionally, NSF may be required to initiate consultations with various individuals or organizations

pursuant to NHPA. These compliance requirements can introduce significant schedule and cost risk

into the project which should be considered and addressed. Furthermore, there is no special source

of funding within NSF to pay for the environmental compliance process; the cost is normally borne by

the program using R&RA funds. Given these factors, the following guidance is offered:

1. It is imperative that the PO contact NSF’s office of the General Counsel early in the

conceptual design stage to seek guidance on specific requirements for compliance.

2. It is extremely important that the PO and the project get cost estimates for the compliance

process and factor these into the project’s scope, schedule and budget early in the design

process.

The cost drivers associated with these activities (their impact on the project construction cost) need

to be known by Preliminary Design Review (PDR) since the PDR budget and risk assessment

provide the basis for the construction funding request.
17

PRELIMINARY DESIGN/READINESS STAGE

The Preliminary Design/Readiness Stage further develops concepts to a level of maturity in

which there are: a fully elaborated definition of the motivating research questions; a clearly

defined site-specific scope; a PDP that addresses major anticipated risks in the completion of

design and development activities and in the undertaking of construction; and an accurate

budget estimate that can be presented with high confidence to the NSF Director, NSB, the office

of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress for consideration for inclusion in a future

NSF budget request.

To satisfy these requirements, the project is developed to a Preliminary Design27 level of

maturity. Results of this development

are reflected in a revised and updated

PEP.28 Components of the updated PEP

that deserve particular emphasis at this

stage include:

 refinement of the research

objectives and priorities of the

proposed facility;

 update of the description of the

required infrastructure, sitespecific design, and definition of

interconnections of all major

subsystems;

 Environmental Assessments or

Environmental Impact Statement

(if applicable);

 bottom-up budget and

contingency estimates, presented

using a WBS structure and

supported by a WBS dictionary

defining the scope of individual

elements;

 updated construction schedule;

 implementation of a Project

Management Control System

(PMCS) 29 and inclusion within

27 NSF utilizes the conventional definition of preliminary design as used by project managers: a site-specific design

defining all major subsystems and their interconnections, a level of design completeness that allows final construction

drawings to proceed, cost estimation based on construction bidding, and bottom-up estimates of cost and

contingency. Preliminary Design usually has a specific meaning within a particular industry or discipline, and NSF

adopts the definition most appropriate to each particular project, as defined in the Project Development Plan.

28 See Appendix 3.

29 The Project Management Body of Knowledge defines the PMCS as an information system consisting of the tools

and techniques used to gather, integrate and disseminate the output of project management processes. It is used to

support all aspects of the project from initiating through closing, and can include both manual and automated

systems. (See A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, Third Ed., Project Management Institute,

Newtown, PA, 2004). The PMCS involves both the software tools for development of the project databases, and the

processes and procedures needed to organize and manage the project. The PMCS is utilized by management to:

schedule and optimize project resources; determine project status by comparing the work accomplished and

“Off-ramps”

Projects may be removed from the

Preliminary Design/Readiness stage by

the NSF Director due to:

 insufficient priority over the long term;

 failure to satisfy milestones or other

criteria defined in the IMP/PDP;

 eclipse by other projects;

 collapse of major external

agreements;

 extensive estimated or actual cost

overruns;

 significant changes in schedule for

development;

 unexpected technical challenges;

 changes in the research community

that indicate eroding support for the

project; or

 any other reason that the Director

deems sufficiently well-founded.

Specific reasons for removing an MREFC

project from this stage will be made

public via the NSF Facility Plan.
18

the preliminary design of a resource-loaded schedule;

 updated risk analysis, including regulatory issues affecting construction or operation, and

time-dependent factors such as inflation indices, price volatility of commodities, etc.

(The preliminary design budget estimate will be the basis for a future NSF budget

request to Congress if the project successfully emerges from the Preliminary

Design/Readiness phase. Costs and risks should be projected forward to the

anticipated award date for construction funds.)

 demonstration that key technologies are feasible and can be industrialized if required;

 definition of budget and schedule needed to go from preliminary design to final design

(updated PDP);

 plans for management of the project during construction, including preliminary

partnership arrangements and international participation, oversight of major sub-awards

and subcontracts, organizational structure, and management of change control;30 and

 updated estimates for future operating costs, anticipated future upgrades, or possible

decommissioning costs of the facility at the end of its operating life.

Preliminary Design/Readiness Stage Activities:

Budgeted contingency funds are re-allocated to defined WBS elements that result from planning

activity. Consequently, budget uncertainty for projected construction is much reduced relative to

the earlier conceptual design. (Additional planning and development during the final preconstruction design stage will result in further transfers of contingency budget to the detailed

work scope.) Typically, about one-third of the total pre-construction planning budget is

expended achieving the preliminary baseline.

Projects in this stage will be reviewed semiannually by the MREFC Panel, based upon updated

IMP and PDP documents and the PO’s analysis, in consultation with the DDLFP, of how the

project has progressed. Interim reviews31 during development will be conducted by NSF as

described in the IMP. This stage culminates in a Preliminary Design Review (PDR), conducted

by NSF, to ensure that all aspects of the project definition and planning are robust. The results

of the PDR are reported by the MREFC Panel to the Director for decision on forwarding to the

NSB.

resources expended by a particular date to the anticipated accomplishments of the baseline plan; compute and track

Earned Value, and evaluate project risk factors by simulating various “what if” scenarios; and manage the change

process by evaluating the effects of alterations to the baseline on the project’s planned budget and schedule.

30 These plans are a preliminary version of the Project Execution Plan that defines how the project will conduct itself

during the construction phase – see Appendix 3.

31 Interim reviews are typically held semi-annually. Exceptions to this, dictated by the needs of a particular project,

are justified in the IMP.
19

Preliminary Design Review:

NSF conducts a PDR, collaboratively organized and led by the PO and the DDLFP, to assess

the robustness of the technical design and completeness of the budget and construction

planning. After seeking guidance from the Director and the Deputy Director, the DDLFP works

with the PO to establish the review criteria and to evaluate results from the review. The PO

develops the specific charge for the review and selects review panel participants.

The review scrutinizes the effectiveness of project management through this stage of

development, as well as plans for completion of final design and eventual construction and

operation. The PDR may utilize, as appropriate, external experts, consultants and outside firms

to evaluate proposed plans and budgets. The PDR also examines the management structure

and credentials of key staff to assure NSF that an appropriately skilled management

organization is ready to complete final design activities and execute the construction phase of

the project.

The MREFC Panel evaluates the findings, conclusions and recommendations for consistency

and examines areas in which judgments by the PO or the DDLFP raise questions or concerns.

Once the project has satisfied any recommendations made by NSF as a result of external

review, and resolved any outstanding issues, the MREFC Panel recommends to the NSF

Director that the project is ready for advancement to the Final Design Stage of development and

is a candidate for NSB approval for inclusion in a future NSF budget request for construction

funding. At any time, the MREFC Panel or the office of the Director may request further

external review.

Alternate “On-Ramps” into Readiness

Not all projects navigate the same course through the pre-conceptual and conceptual design

stages. For example, conceptual design could be funded by other agencies or non-Federal

sources, or an opportunity could arise for the U.S. community to participate in a welldeveloped international effort. In such circumstances, where the conceptual design is

complete and has been extensively reviewed to the satisfaction of NSF, admission to the

Readiness Stage may be the most appropriate entry point into the MREFC process.

Prerequisites for entry are submission of a proposal that presents the science case for a

project, as well as a PEP and construction budget of appropriate maturity for the project’s

state of development. Proposals should be submitted via the standard on-line FastLane

channel only after discussions with the PO that include a request for waiver of the nominal

page limits for NSF proposals (normally granted at the directorate level). Reviews of this

proposal, conducted by the PO in consultation with the DDLFP, will help to establish whether

NSF will support the project’s preliminary design, and to determine a schedule for future

reviews and decision points.

Regardless of how or when the project enters the Preliminary Design Stage, a PDR will be

conducted by NSF prior to consideration of its promotion into the Final Design Stage. The

timing for such a review will be determined in consultation among the project proponents, the

PO and the DDLFP.
20

Following the PDR, the NSF PO updates the IMP to describe proposed plans for budgeting and

oversight, and to finalize commitments from interagency and international partners during final

design. The PO directs the project’s proposers to update the PDP to lay out the work scope,

budget and schedule necessary to bring the project to Final Design.

The completion of project planning and development, culminating in a Final Design, should be

aligned with the expected time-scale for requesting and appropriating construction funds. The

NSF Director is the coordinator for this critical planning activity, bringing projects forward for

construction only if, in the Director’s judgment, OMB and Congress are likely to approve the

request and appropriation of funds within the time period in which the Preliminary Design plans

and cost estimate remain valid.

Exit from the Preliminary Design/Readiness Stage:

A candidate project exits from this stage and enters the Final Design/Board Approval stage after

successful review by the MREFC Panel, and after the NSF Director recommends the proposed

project to the NSB for approval to include in a future year budget request. The MREFC Panel

and the Director should first be satisfied that the following conditions have been met:

 the AD or office head of the sponsoring directorate or office (the originating organization)

continues to assert the high scientific merit and importance of the project and has a

sound financial plan for supporting the remaining pre-construction planning activities and

the future operations and use of the facility;

 the Preliminary Design has been successfully reviewed internally and by an external

panel of experts in order to obtain the best possible objective advice from authorities in

the fields and disciplines utilized by the project;

 the DDLFP concurs that the Preliminary Design is reasonable and poses an acceptable

level of risk, and that anticipated costs for construction and operation are sufficiently well

known;

 the NSF Chief Financial Officer (CFO) certifies that the Preliminary Design budget has

been satisfactorily defined;

 the NSF Director is satisfied that external participation in all phases of the project (other

agencies, international and/or private sector entities, etc.) is well planned;

 updated IMP and PDP documents have been reviewed and approved by the Facilities

Panel (IMP only), the MREFC Panel, and the Director;

 an appropriate Project Leadership/Management team is in place; and

 the MREFC Panel asserts that the proposed MREFC project, when compared to other

proposed projects – whether within the same field, across related fields, or across

different fields32– is among the very highest priorities for potential new facilities.

Based on its review of the information provided and discussions with program and project staff,

the MREFC Panel (chaired by the Deputy Director and with the advice and recommendation of

the DDLFP and the CFO) forwards one or more projects in priority order to the Director, who

makes the decision to forward to the NSB for approval. The rationale and criteria used for the

selection and prioritization of these projects is clearly articulated in the Facility Plan.

32 In making this determination, the second and third ranking criteria in Appendix 2 are judiciously applied.
21

NSB APPROVAL/FINAL DESIGN STAGE

The goal of the NSB Approval/Final Design Stage is to meet the requirements necessary to

advance the proposed project to the subsequent Construction Stage. Budgetary and

administrative requirements for entry include NSF review and approval of the project’s

preliminary design as described in the PEP, and NSB approval to include the project in a future

NSF budget request.

Technical requirements include:

 delivery of designs, specifications and work scopes that can be placed for bid to

industry;

 refined bottom-up cost estimates and contingency estimates;

 implementation of a PMCS for project technical and financial status reporting;

 completion of recruitment of key staff and cost account managers needed to undertake

construction of the project;

 industrialization of key technologies needed for construction;

 finalization of commitments with interagency and international partners; and

 submission to NSF of a PEP33 for construction.

Successful exit occurs when a final, construction-ready PEP has been completed, reviewed and

approved by NSF, and when Congressional appropriation of MREFC funds occurs, based upon

a specific budget request to Congress.

NSB Submission and Approval:

The originating organization(s) is responsible for preparing the documentation needed for the

NSB to review and approve a proposed MREFC project for inclusion in a future budget request.

Prior to NSB submission, the Director’s Review Board (DRB)34 reviews and approves the

documentation supporting advancement of the project into the NSB Approved Stage (such as

prior stage reviews, committee evaluations, PDP evaluation, and reviewed proposal ratings) to

ensure adherence to NSF processes and policies.

As NSB considers projects for approval,35 NSF makes available to the NSB, upon request, the

PEP and IMP, and the reviews from the community, the Facilities Panel, the DDLFP, the

MREFC Panel and other relevant parties. NSB considers the following elements, applying

primarily the third ranking criteria (national priorities: see Appendix 2), as appropriate:

 the research and science enabled by the proposed facility;

 construction plans together with their risks and degree of readiness;

 budget justification for construction and operation of the facility;

 the likelihood that funding will be available in the next few years; and

 the priority of the project in furthering one or several objectives in the Facility Plan.

33 Further discussion of the PEP is found in Chapter 4 of the Facilities Manual and in the supplementary material in

Chapter 5: “Guidelines for Development or Project Execution Plans for Large Facility Projects.”

34 See page 52 for the composition of this group.

35 See the Facility Plan for a description and status report of current NSB approved projects.
22

If NSB approves a project for future-year funding, it specifies its priority among all projects in the

Board-approved stage.36 If a project is not approved, or if an approved project’s plans are no

longer deemed to be clearly and fully construction-ready, NSB will remand that project to the

Preliminary Design/Readiness stage for further work. Projects should not languish in this stage;

they are expected to be resubmitted to the NSB in the following year.

Inclusion in an NSF Budget Request:

The NSF Director proposes, in priority order, the NSB-approved construction-ready projects for

the MREFC account. If an MREFC “new start” is approved for inclusion in the President’s

Budget Request to Congress, then Congress may ask for additional information through formal

hearings and/or informal briefings. Once Congress passes an appropriations act for NSF and

the President signs it into law, NSF may obligate funds.

Before funds are available for a new project, an approved Final Design Baseline should be in

place, as described in the next section At that point, several steps remain to be taken before an

MREFC award can be made: successful review of the final design baseline; internal NSF review

by the DRB; Director recommendation to the NSB for making an award; NSB review and

approval; and negotiation of the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement between

NSF and the awardee institution for the activities, in conformance with the final baseline.

Final Design Review (FDR):

NSB-approved projects should continue to receive pre-construction development funds in order

to produce a Final Design, which includes the following elements:

 a final construction-ready design;

 tools and technologies needed to construct the project;

 a project management plan describing governance of the project, configuration control

plans, and plans for reporting technical and financial status, managing sub-awardees

and working with interagency and international partners;

 a fully implemented PMCS, including a final version of the resource-loaded schedule and

mechanisms for the project to generate reports – using the Earned Value Management

System (EVMS)37– on a monthly basis and use them as a management tool. Path

dependencies, schedule float, and critical path are defined;

36 The Board ascribes the very highest priority to projects that are under construction. There is no priority among

them; they should all move forward at a suitable pace.

37 Progress should be tracked and measured using the Earned Value method (this method is required by the office of

Management and Budget in its Planning, Budgeting, Acquisition, and Management of Capital Assets circular).

Earned Value is an objective analysis of a project’s cost and schedule progress as compared to the Baseline Project

Definition (or, Rebaselined Project Definition). Tracking cost and schedule variances (as described below) enables

decision makers to assess overall project performance and, when there are budget overruns or schedule slips, to

implement corrective actions. Earned Value uses three “building blocks” (Planned Value (PV), Earned Value (EV),

and Actual Cost (AC)) to calculate Schedule (EV – PV) and Cost (EV – AC) variances. Negative results indicate that

a project is over budget and/or behind schedule. To use Earned Value, one needs to determine the percent of a task

that has been completed. For purposes of Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) reporting, a simple

measure of Earned Value will be used: if a task has not been started, it is 0% complete; if a task has been started it

is assumed to be 50% complete; and only when a task has been completed is the whole value earned. A discussion

of Earned Value is included in the EVM section of Chapter V, Guidelines for Financial Management.
23

 updated budget and contingency, including risk analysis, presented in a detailed WBS

format accompanied by a WBS dictionary defining the scope of all entries;

 all necessary partnership agreements and Memoranda of Understanding;

 fit-up and installation details of major components and commissioning strategy;

 plans for Quality Assurance and Safety;

 updated operating cost estimates; and

 certification that all of the pre-construction planning topics, including those listed in

Appendix 3, are fully complete and determined to be adequate.

After an appropriation for an MREFC project is enacted – but before such funds are released –

NSF reviews and approves the Final Design Baseline to ensure that the project plans and

budget are fully ready for construction, and that there is a high degree of confidence that the

facility can be delivered within the parameters defined in the project baseline.38

The PO and the DDLFP are responsible for collaboratively organizing and leading the Final

Design Review (FDR). The review is conducted according to the same standards and with the

same respective roles for the PO and DDLFP, as described previously for the PDR.

The scope of the FDR includes assessment of the technical and project-management

components of the proposed project. Review panel participants provide an objective view of the

project and a critical evaluation of the plans and risks embodied in the proposed program.

Participants provide expertise in the principal disciplines and specialties utilized by the project,

balanced among scientific, engineering, business and project-management credentials. In

addition, the IMP should continue to be updated and assessed annually to ensure that the

underlying assumptions about the project remain valid. If construction funds fail to be

appropriated as planned, the NSF Director may choose to remand the project to the Preliminary

Design/Readiness stage or mandate annual project status reviews to assure NSF of the

continued viability of the project’s plan and budget for construction.

CONSTRUCTION STAGE

Following a successful review of the final design baseline, the Director recommends to NSB that

it approve a construction award(s). NSB reviews the recommendation and authorizes the

making of the award(s). Following this approval, an award instrument – generally a cooperative

agreement(s) – between NSF and the awardee institution(s) is negotiated. After MREFC funds

are appropriated, NSF proceeds to award the contracts and/or cooperative agreements for

construction of the facility. Construction then begins.

The awardee(s) provides periodic financial and technical status reports to NSF according to the

terms and conditions of the Cooperative Agreement. The project is subjected to periodic postaward status reviews of technical performance, cost, schedule and management performance

throughout the course of construction activities. These reviews are typically held at the facility.

NSF appoints the review panel members directly and oversees them directly. They are typically

external experts covering all aspects of the project, and assess technical progress, cost,

schedule, and management performance. These panels report directly to NSF on project

direction and any needed changes. The reviews are organized and conducted by the PO in

38 This scrutiny emphasizes the importance of initial planning and definition of the technical scope, budget and

schedule, and implementation of a transparent process for management of changes to the final baseline.
24

consultation with the DDLFP. (Note: Many projects invite panels of experts to review and

advise on project plans and progress. Such panels report to the Project Director, and are not a

substitute for NSF-organized external oversight reviews.)

Generally, when cost and/or schedule performance begin to deviate from plans, change control

is exercised by the project through a Change Control Board (CCB)39 action, resulting in

modifications to the project's budget or schedule contingency. Whenever a project approves a

change control action that results in allocating or returning contingency to the pool of

contingency funds, the baseline Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (also referred to as the

Planned Value) has changed.

It is normal practice for a project to update its Estimate to Complete (ETC), a process whereby

the Actual Cost of Work Performed is compared to the baseline cost. The results are used to

revise the remaining cost estimate to determine the project's ETC. This activity also results in

baseline changes.

Such budgetary adjustments do not mean that costs have exceeded the total funds

appropriated (in the case of an upward adjustment); rather, they signify that contingency funds

are being expended.

Similar change-control actions affect the Baseline Cost of Work Scheduled. They revise the

baseline project schedule and the available schedule contingency or “float” time – that is, the

difference between milestones on the schedule's critical path and the expected completion

dates for activities that lead to the accomplishment of those milestones.

If only small fractions of the available contingency and float are expended, the re-baselining is

done unilaterally by the project. NSF approval is required only when the CCB recommends

change actions that exceed the budget or schedule thresholds identified in the Cooperative

Agreement between NSF and the awardee.

It is essential for the project management to respect the project baseline rigorously, maintaining

each adjusted baseline in the project's database along with the attributed CCB actions. This

allows the project and NSF to systematically track the evolution of the baseline from its initial

release through all subsequent changes.

NSF approval is required if re-baselining involves changes to the NSB-approved Total Project

Cost (TPC). An increase in construction cost exceeding 20 percent of the NSB-approved

baseline cost or $10 million (whichever is smaller) should be reviewed and approved by the

NSB on the recommendation of the MREFC Panel and the Director. In all cases where

increases in the TPC beyond the NSB-approved level are foreseen, the MREFC Panel, through

the NSF Deputy Director, is notified, reviews, concurs with, and/or makes alternative

recommendations regarding the originating organization’s plan for dealing with the issue.

Prior to requesting approval of such increases, a new external baseline review should be

conducted to examine the nature of the problems encountered, and to determine whether descoping is an option or, if not, whether the problems have been solved. Upon review, cost and

schedule are stabilized and the contingency is adjusted to an appropriate level.

For TPC increases below the NSB threshold, the nature and depth of the review will vary.

Whenever any such cost increases are foreseen, it is most important that the DDLFP is

39 A Change Control Board comprises the senior project managers responsible for defining the project's resource

requirements and allocating or expending those resources. It typically consists of the Project Director, Project

Manager, Business Manager, cost account managers of principal work breakdown structure elements, chief scientist

and engineer, and systems engineer. It may include other project staff whose authority pertains to the range of

activities considered by the Board.
25

consulted early, concurs on the details of the originating organization’s plan, and advises and

concurs on details of the external re-baselining review. Similarly, when there are indications

that the project contingency will fall below reasonable standards,40 the NSF PO should discuss

plans for dealing with the variance with the Project Director. A good practice here is to note

such information in the monthly status reports that go to the DDLFP, NSF’s office of Budget,

Finance and Award Management, and the NSF Director’s office. Also, the DDLFP is a resource

for dealing with such problems and steps that can be taken to restore adequate contingency.

In addition to supplying regular status reports required in the terms and conditions of the

cooperative agreement, it is essential that MREFC project staff inform NSF staff in a timely

manner of major issues or significant changes in project status, such as re-baselining, problems

with partnerships, or surprising research and development results. NSF management, the

MREFC Panel and the NSB should in turn be informed of such developments.

On rare occasions, MREFC projects under construction may encounter unforeseen budget or

programmatic challenges that are of a substantial enough level to be considered grounds for

termination or significant modification to the original project goals. NSF management will

provide NSB with appropriate information and a recommendation. NSB will decide whether

termination or significant modification to the original project goals is warranted.41

40 See details in Chapter IV, Detailed Considerations and Requirements: Requirements for Oversight, Reviews and

Reporting.

41 NSB/NSF Setting Priorities for Large Research Facilities Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation,

NSB 05-77.
26

POST-CONSTRUCTION STAGES

Commissioning:

The transition from construction to operations is rarely abrupt. Many facility projects require a

testing and commissioning phase, funded through the MREFC account. The scope of these

activities is defined in the PEP and included in the initial MREFC budget request. The PEP is

included by reference in NSF’s cooperative agreement or contract with the awardee institution,

documenting the mutual understanding of the work scope funded by MREFC funds. In some

cases, particularly with distributed facility projects, early operations funding begins to increase

as aspects of a facility come on line, although full construction funding may not have concluded.

Although these phases overlap in time, they are budgeted and managed separately.

NSF will ask for a commissioning plan at least one year prior to initial commissioning activities.

The scope of commissioning work is to undertake initial operation of the facility and bring it up to

the design level of operation in accordance with the IMP. The IMP is updated prior to the

operations stage to define reviews, decision points, strategies for renewal or re-competition,

plan for advanced R&D or technology refresh, upgrades, etc.

Operations:

Although NSF does not directly manage the operations of the facilities it supports (with the

exception of Antarctic activities), the agency is substantially involved42 during performance of

the cooperative agreement.43 NSF employs a team-oriented approach in which scientific and

engineering staff work closely with business operations staff.

The operations of a new facility may be managed by the awardee responsible for construction

or acquisition of the facility or the Operations Stage may be managed by a different entity,

depending on circumstances stated in the IMP.

The operations proposal is merit-reviewed following NSF’s guidelines. Operations activities are

funded through NSF’s R&RA and/or EHR accounts. Testing and acceptance, user training and

engineering studies occur as the facility transitions to full operation. Operations include the dayto-day work required to: support and conduct research and education activities; ensure that the

facility is operating efficiently and cost-effectively; and provide small- and intermediate-scale

technical enhancements when needed to maintain state-of-the-art research capabilities.

The awardee provides periodic status reports on facility performance to NSF. In addition, NSF

convenes periodic reviews of the facility’s operations activities using merit review, and receives

input from various advisory committees, planning bodies of the discipline(s) served by the

facility and other Federal Advisory Committee Act committees. These bodies advise NSF on

renewal of the facility operations award, upgrades, re-competition and termination as

appropriate.

42 Refer to Federal Register / Vol. 43, No. 161 / Friday, August 18, 1978 / p. 36860.

43 NSF facility awards are normally, but not exclusively, cooperative agreements. If the award is an alternative

funding instrument (e.g., grant or contract), NSF interacts with the awardee as appropriate for the funding instrument.
27

The PO, supported by the originating organization, is responsible for managing NSF’s

substantial involvement in the performance of the operations award. Periodic reviews will

address business operations, management, cost and scientific productivity, and will ensure that

awardees are performing to the terms and conditions of their awards. During operations, the

DDLFP is responsible for ensuring that all facilities follow NSF procedures and that NSF is

providing proper oversight. The DDLFP attends reviews as appropriate, and oversees the

complete portfolio of large facilities.

Renewal/Recompetition:

The operations stage of large facilities is typically more than 10 years, with significant variation

within NSF’s portfolio.44 To stay at the research frontier, upgrades and renewal of equipment are

usually required. In the case of an observatory, this may include new instruments and cameras.

For a sensor network, it may include the deployment of additional sensors or renewal of

cyberinfrastructure. At an accelerator facility, the upgrades may take the form of higher energy

or luminosity or new detectors. In general, these upgrades and renewals will be funded from

R&RA funds, often from a portion of the operating funds designed for such purposes. Funding

for more significant upgrades – the cost of which exceeds the MREFC threshold – may come

from the MREFC account. In that case, the approval process is the same as that for a new

MREFC project.

Most NSF facilities will be operated by a managing organization.45 Because facility lifetimes are

long (some current facilities have operated in excess of 40 years), recompetition of

management is appropriate at intervals. Whenever practical, NSF seeks to make competitive

renewal awards for operation of large facilities after external merit review. NSB resolution 97-

224 states that “Expiring awards are to be recompeted unless it is judged to be in the interest of

US science and engineering not to do so.” Consistent with NSB policy, originating organizations

will, at appropriate intervals, assess whether recompetition is in the best interest of U.S. science

and engineering.

The goal of competition is to stimulate new approaches toward more effective management that

may offset any potential for increased costs, and ideally may achieve some cost savings.

Important considerations beyond performance of current management include how

recompetition might affect the scientific productivity of the facility and the burden it would place

on the community. The determination of whether to compete the effort is based on the expert

advice of NSF staff and, where applicable, external sources using the facility.

Termination:

To remain at the research frontier and support new facilities, NSF should retire existing facilities

when the science they enable is of a lower strategic priority than science that could be enabled

by alternate use of the funds. Such decisions will be difficult to make, in part because of the

number of stakeholders and interested parties, and will require extensive community

consultation and input, which may come from “blue ribbon” panels, National Academies

44 Computing facilities, for example, may have a useful lifetime of less than 10 years.

45 Current examples include Associated Universities, Inc. (AUI) for the National Radio Astronomy Observatory

(NRAO); University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) for the National Center for Atmospheric Research

(NCAR); and Cornell University for the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC).
28

committees and professional societies. In some cases in which a facility can continue to be

productive, it may be possible to transfer ownership to another agency, a university or a

consortium of universities. It is the responsibility of the directorates and divisions to review their

facilities portfolios periodically and to consider which facilities may have reached an appropriate

end of NSF support.
29

III. Planning and Managing Large Facility Projects Not Funded by the

MREFC account

INTRODUCTION

The project management processes and principles described in the preceding chapter are

generally applicable to all large facility projects, irrespective of the source of construction

funding. However, considerable flexibility is allowed in the management approach to adapt the

process to the requirements and scope of any particular project.

This chapter, predicated upon an understanding of Chapter II, provides guidelines for planning

and managing new facility projects that are not constructed with funding from MREFC

accounts.46 This is usually the case when the project does not qualify for MREFC funding47

and/or the sponsoring directorate or office chooses not to apply for MREFC funding.

This chapter applies to non-MREFC facility projects that take a multi-stage design approach

similar to that described in Chapter II, and that are large enough to require multiple levels of

approval within NSF beyond the level of the originating organization. (It does not pertain to

awards for centers, or other types of awards unrelated to facilities which require approval merely

because of their large size). The total cost of a non-MREFC facility project generally ranges

from millions to tens of millions of dollars or more. The majority of these projects will require

NSB award approval.48

Non-MREFC projects must have an IMP, but are not subject to the same requirements for

Conceptual Design, Preliminary Design, and Final Design reviews outlined in Chapter II. They

are not required to use the three sets of ranking criteria in Appendix 2 and are not subject to

review by the MREFC Panel. However, the elements described in Chapter II make a useful tool

kit for a directorate or office to use in planning and managing all large facilities that proceed

through these design stages. How the elements might apply is the focus of this chapter.

As in the case of MREFC projects, NSF is committed to the principle that flexibility does not

preclude rigor. For projects that do not require a multi-stage design approach, the PO should

explain the variation and define the management approach taken in the project’s IMP.

Selection Criteria: Both MREFC and non-MREFC facility projects should depend on a

proposal-driven process, with external and internal merit review. Other factors to consider might

include:

 exceptional opportunity to enable frontier S&E research and education;

46 R&RA (and possibly EHR) appropriations accounts are used to support the construction of non-MREFC large

facilities. In addition, non-construction activities of MREFC-funded construction projects, including research, design,

development and operations costs, are normally funded through the R&RA and/or EHR appropriations accounts.

47 See the previous chapter for eligibility requirements for MREFC funding.

48 Current NSF policy requires the following items to be submitted to the NSB for approval: (1) Large Awards.

Proposed awards where the average annual award amount is 1% or more of the awarding directorate or office's prior

year current plan (including any funds transferred from other Federal agencies to be awarded through NSF funding

actions); (2) Major Construction Projects. NSB approval is required when the resulting cost is expected to exceed the

percentage threshold for NSB award approval; (3) Awards involving policy issues or unusual sensitivity. NSB

interests may include the establishment of new centers, institutes or facilities that have the potential for rapid growth

in funding or special budgetary initiatives.
30

 urgent contemporary research and education need;

 high priority within the relevant S&E communities;

 accessibility to an appropriately broad user community;

 well defined partnerships;

 technical feasibility and risks thoroughly addressed; and

 a well developed PEP.

PO Oversight: At the earliest practical point, each large-facility project is assigned an NSF

PO49 with primary responsibility for award management and project oversight. As noted in

Chapter II, NSF restricts the choice of POs overseeing MREFC-funded activities to permanent

NSF employees50 to assure continuity of oversight. POs overseeing non-MREFC-funded

projects are exempt from this requirement. However, the principle should be taken into

consideration for non-MREFC projects by matching the term of assignment of the cognizant

NSF oversight staff to the duration of the late-stage planning and construction activity.

Alternatively, assigning a team of POs with a mix of permanent and rotating staff may help

ensure continuity.

Facilities Panel: The Facilities Panel51 is available to review and provide comments on the IMP

for a large facility project, independent of the source of construction funds.

Interaction with Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects: The DDLFP is available in an

advisory capacity to NSF staff working on non-MREFC funded projects as a resource for best

practices for project management and business oversight. But the DDLFP’s involvement is not

mandatory unless so directed by the Director, the Deputy Director, or the AD/office head of the

originating organization(s). The DDLFP may be asked by the Director or Deputy Director to

review DRB and NSB packages for non-MREFC facilities.

Project Advisory Teams: At the earliest opportunity, the PO should organize a PAT52 to

provide advice and counsel implementing developmental oversight. It is not mandatory that the

DDLFP (or designated representative) be a member of the PAT, but he/she may be invited by

the PO to participate where the complexity or magnitude of the project warrants. In the event

that a PAT is formed, the participation of an officer from Contracts and Complex Agreements (or

grants officer where applicable) is recommended.

NSB Budget Approval: Unlike MREFC projects, non-MREFC projects do not require formal

NSB approval as part of the budget process in order to be included in future NSF budget

requests. Rather, the non-MREFC projects are considered by NSB in the course of reviewing

the entire NSF budget request. However, both MREFC projects and non-MREFC facility

projects of large size require both DRB and NSB approval before an award is made.

NSF office of the Director: Providing information early in the planning process to the office of

the Director is advisable. The Director may wish to share information items periodically with the

NSB.

49 Also referred to within NSF as Program Director or Program Manager.

50 See Public Law 107-368, Section 14(c).

51 See Chapter IV and the detailed explanations in the “Roles and Responsibilities” section of Chapter V for

descriptions of the Facilities Panel.

52 See Appendix 1 for a complete description of the Project Advisory Team. See also “Roles and Responsibilities of

NSF Staff Involved in the Management and Oversight of Large Facilities". in Chapter V.
31

PRE-CONSTRUCTION PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

As is the case with most MREFC projects, pre-construction planning and development of nonMREFC facility projects may progress through sequential stages of increasing investment,

planning, assessment and oversight. At each stage, the technical evolution of the project and

NSF’s preparatory planning and budgeting are coordinated and synchronized to achieve an

orderly evaluation process that results in eventual construction funding for the most meritorious

projects.

The sponsoring directorate decides upon the appropriate degree of rigor and formality in preconstruction planning necessary to ensure that the project is well defined and appropriately

budgeted. These decisions are based upon the size and complexity of the proposed project,

and are documented and justified in the project’s IMP.

As with MREFC projects, most non-MREFC funded projects begin when NSF responds to a

community initiative (exceptions may include infrastructure replacement and addition). Such

initiatives may take different forms – for example, a report from a community planning activity or

a formal proposal. The sponsoring directorate or office’s decisions and strategies for project

review, funding and oversight are delineated in the IMP. The IMP specifies how NSF will

supervise management of a project, and provides budgetary estimates for developing,

constructing and operating the facility. It also identifies termination liabilities and lays out a

strategy for financing these activities as well as the concomitant NSF oversight requirements.

The PO in the sponsoring directorate or office prepares the IMP in the early stages of the

project’s conceptualization. It is reviewed and approved by the Assistant Director/office head of

the originating organization(s). The originating organization(s) may design and adopt oversight

processes and procedures that are flexibly tailored to the needs of the particular project.

Very large or complex projects will require more formalized pre-construction planning and

frequent status reporting. Smaller projects will have appropriate requirements.53 The project

management approach used must be scaled to the needs of a particular project. For example,

project management controls used to manage project resources, document project activity, and

plan alternate courses of action to mitigate risk will be much more sophisticated and costly for a

large-scale project than for a small one.

Budgets, schedules, risk assessments, and project management plans will be similarly scaled.

The IMP defines NSF’s expectations for the appropriate level of scaling that optimally matches

oversight requirements to project needs. NSF conveys these expectations to the project

proponents for incorporation in their PDP and PEP as appropriate.

53 See the section “Guidelines for Development of Internal Management Plans for Large Facilities” in Chapter V for

additional details.
32

IV. Detailed Considerations and Requirements

This chapter provides greater detail about key management, budgeting and reporting activities

that should be carried out, throughout a project’s life-cycle phases, for both MREFC and nonMREFC projects to ensure adherence to principles established by NSF.

BUDGETING AND FUNDING

The awardee is responsible for developing budgets to establish and/or operate a facility. The

PO is responsible for reviewing these budgets (and the assumptions used to develop them) for

completeness, appropriateness and reasonableness, and then for making a funding

recommendation. The PO then develops a funding profile and a cash-flow analysis with

examination of associated risks,54 and takes the steps to secure appropriate commitments from

all internal and external sources of funds.

Funding for the activity (development, construction and operation) is derived from the

appropriate NSF budget account – R&RA, EHR, or MREFC. Barring documented exceptions,

the R&RA (and possibly EHR) account will be used to fund concept, development, operations &

maintenance, renewal or termination costs. By contrast, the MREFC account, if applicable, will

be used to fund implementation (construction, acquisition and commissioning) costs.

For non-MREFC projects, the R&RA (and possibly EHR) account also funds the implementation

costs. In all cases, attention should be paid to the fundamental difference between creating the

basic infrastructure (i.e., constructing and/or acquiring the facility and all its installed

instrumentation and equipment), operating the facility and enabling others to use the

infrastructure once it has been established. Construction, operations and maintenance are

typically funded through a Cooperative Agreement between NSF and the managing

organization. Infrastructure utilization is typically supported through grants, funded by NSF

through the R&RA and/or EHR accounts and/or other agencies, to individual researchers to

conduct research and education activities at the facility.

Budgets for construction are part of a construction proposal, which is subjected to review by the

PO in order to obtain additional expert judgment. The construction budget is the result of

developing a project baseline, as discussed in Chapter II. Proposed budgets should also

include details concerning contributions from other agency or international partners.

When funds from separate appropriations are obligated under a single award, the Cooperative

Agreement will specify the account to which various expenditures are to be charged. awardees

are expected to adhere to those specifications; the PO and the Grants officer ensure

adherence. In the case of partnerships, the PO explores options for generating proposals and

develops a proposal-generating document with the project partners. It is very important that

potential partners understand the NSF process.

54 A cash-flow analysis compares the project’s anticipated expenditure rate, plus the time-phased risk exposure

associated with budgeted contingency, to NSF’s planned schedule for obligating funding. Projects typically perform

optimally when they are “technically limited,” i.e. the rate at which the project progresses is limited by technical

considerations, rather than “financially limited,” where a project’s progress is limited by the availability of funding.
33

For awards involving NSF ownership of property, the PO should advise the Office of the

General Counsel; Office of Budget, Finance and Award Management; and the DDLFP.55

Budgets for Construction Awards:

NSF utilizes internal staff, outside experts and consulting firms, and NSF-conducted external

expert reviews at the Preliminary Design and Final Design stage to ensure that proposed

construction budgets have the following characteristics.

 Budgets are based on the approved cost, schedule and performance requirements

defined in the project baseline.

 The budget contingency and scope contingency are adequate to mitigate anticipated risk

factors defined in the project’s risk analysis.

 Budgets include adequate funding for project management, including the use of

appropriate project management tools such as project management control software and

associated staff support.

 Where budget caps are imposed, there are sound strategies to de-scope the project or,

alternatively, include a scope contingency56 in the budget.

 Adequate funds are provided for system integration. Failure to address integration

issues, including appropriate staffing and funding, can lead to serious cost overruns and

corresponding schedule slips.

 Funding is included for commissioning, testing and acceptance of the facility and

transition from construction/acquisition to operations. The budget should include funding

for staff to perform these activities and train the operations personnel. Roles change as

a project progresses from construction through commissioning and eventually to

operations; time and staffing requirements need to be carefully calculated in advance.

 Where partnerships are involved, monetary contributions to construction and/or

acquisition and eventual operations and usage are timely and sufficient.

 All IT costs – both initial cost and continuing costs of hardware, software, maintenance,

upgrades and operations – are fully considered. Rapid advances in computing may

require upgrades as often as every three to five years.

Budgets for Operations Awards:

It is incumbent on NSF to plan and budget for effective research and educational use of

facilities, as well as costs of operation.

Given funding constraints, a proper balance should be struck between support for users of

facilities and the facilities themselves. In many cases, such support extends to in-house users

of the facilities. Funding is through the directorate/office R&RA or EHR account. When an NSF

directorate proposes a facility for MREFC funding, a commitment is made by that directorate to

provide adequate funding for the operation and utilization of the facility. Other sources of

55 For guidance in addressing other property issues, see the following modules in Chapter 5: Roles and

Responsibilities of NSF Staff Involved in the Management and Oversight of Large Facilities; Guidelines for the

Development of Project Execution Plans for Large Facilities; and Guidelines for Conducting Total Business Systems

Reviews of NSF’s Large Facilities.

56 Scope contingency refers to those project objectives of lesser importance within the overall project scope. They

may optionally be eliminated, if necessary, in order to accomplish the primary objectives while remaining within

budget and schedule constraints.
34

support may be provided through other agency awards or partner funding. Support for

education/outreach may also come through EHR, if appropriate.

In order to prepare for the operations phase of a large facility or infrastructure project, it is

essential to begin to establish, in the conceptual design stage, the level of funding needed for

operations. The choice of technology may impact this funding level, and the project design

should be optimized with operating cost as a key element. The PO provides “not-to-exceed”

guidance on expected operating costs prior to the onset of preliminary design activities, and the

proposer’s preliminary facility design should contain a substantive, reviewable estimate of

expected operating costs that will be considered as one of the determining factors in advancing

a project for construction funding. The estimate is regularly reevaluated during final design and

construction activities to ensure that the expectations of NSF and the awardee are aligned.

NSF staff should ensure that a plan is in place to make anticipated operating funds available by

the final year of construction and/or acquisition. (In some cases, initial operation of a facility will

overlap with completion of construction.) The plan should specify the sources of all NSF funds

and any expectation to share costs between directorates/offices and with external partners. If

there are partners, the plan should address the conditions under which advanced payments are

appropriate, and how advanced payments will be accounted for.

Proper support of end users is essential to the efficient utilization of a facility. Accordingly, the

PO may have to increase the end user’s budget or redirect support within a program to support

new investigators. Planning for end-user support should be started in the concept stage and

continued until operations begin.

The PO should refer to the funding profile and cash-flow analysis developed earlier in making

budgeting and funding decisions. Budgets should be carefully reviewed to ensure that the

assumptions used to develop them remain valid and that the estimate is complete, appropriate

and reasonable. Multiyear budgets should take inflation into account, using official factors

published by the office of Management and Budget each year (available from NSF’s Budget

Division) or other accepted methods. However, when NSF budgets are flat, NSF may not be

able to afford inflationary increases in operations funding for facilities, and reductions in staff

and/or operations may be required.

Salary costs are typically the most significant component of operating budgets. Categories may

include: professionals and technicians to operate and maintain the facility; IT specialists;

administrative and grounds staff; environmental, health and safety specialists; machinists;

designers, engineers and software experts to support users; engineers/scientists to conduct

R&D for continuous improvement of the facility and related instrumentation; liaison staff to

interface with the community; project management specialists for ongoing projects; financial and

budget specialists; and staff to meet reporting requirements.

Budgets should also include careful consideration of key non-salary factors. When power costs

are significant and volatile, a strategy for dealing with price fluctuation should be developed as

part of the operations plan. Other examples of items that may require separate consideration

are expendables – such as cryogens, gases and spare parts – and ancillary equipment such as

refrigerators and IT equipment. Planners should assess emerging IT technologies, such as grid

computing, to ensure that the research community will have appropriate resources to make best

use of the data and to assume leadership roles in the field. Initial IT capital costs and the cost

of software development, including software support during operations, need to be carefully
35

evaluated.57 Furthermore, informed estimates regarding the small- and mid-scale

instrumentation needs of the facility and users of the facility should be made.

Education and Outreach during Operation:

NSF’s large facilities present exceptional opportunities for furthering science education at many

levels: education and training of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers; research

experiences for undergraduate students (REU programs); K-12 education; research

experiences for teachers (RET programs) and in-service training for K-12 teachers; and informal

science education for the community. Pursuit of these activities can also result in broadening

participation in scientific training, research and science education by individuals from

underrepresented groups, strengthening diversity of participation.

The PO should encourage the facility director, well before the operations phase, to begin

planning that leads to effective programs in these areas. Exceptional programs are often the

result of synergistic partnerships among scientists, formal educators and the broader

community. The PO should encourage such partnerships, and may be able to utilize NSF

resources to facilitate their development in some circumstances. The PO may give direction to

the facility that a small percentage of the annual operations budget (on the order of one to two

percent) should be used to further educational outreach, or may request a separate proposal

from the facility to fund these activities. Graduate training and funding of REU and RET

programs are usually supported through separate NSF awards.

Contingency Budgeting during Operations:

In accordance with OMB Circular A-21: Cost Principles for Universities and OMB circular A-122:

Cost Principles for Non-profit Organizations, contingency or “Director’s Reserve” funds are not

an allowed component of facility operations budgets. Operating budgets should include

explicitly identified allowances for repairs, maintenance and other factors such as “technology

refresh” for IT infrastructure. It is recommended that each project undertake a systematic

program of formal risk assessment to identify the potential cost and operations impacts of nonrecurring events, along with an assessment of their probability of occurrence, and include this

information as part of the operating plan.

For example, a PO may request a periodic formal Condition Assessment report (an evaluation

of capital assets requiring significant expenditures for periodic replacement or refurbishment

and having a lifetime longer than the usual five-year award cycle), accompanied by an Asset

Management Plan (a strategic plan for dealing with these issues), to inform NSF and the facility

management of anticipated major and infrequent maintenance expenses that cause a significant

departure from the routine funding profile. This allows NSF, as part of its budget allocation

process, to proactively address these issues before they become immediate needs.

Operating budgets should include, when appropriate, resources to provide a continuing program

of advanced R&D that will enable a facility to evolve its scientific program and best meet the

needs of the research community. The PO should be closely involved in monitoring and

assessing the facility’s evolution and in supporting advanced R&D planning and budgeting.

Evaluation of each large NSF facility, as part of its yearly operations review, should include a

57 While specific computing costs generally drop with time (Moore’s Law), the data volume is increasing at least as

fast, and greater and greater bandwidth is required for the transmission of data to remote users. As a result, the time

frame for IT upgrades/turnover is typically three to five years.
36

section on the plans for advanced R&D and should relate these plans to the anticipated evolving

mission of the facility. This evaluation helps guide the PO in formulating a budget strategy for

funding advanced R&D efforts.

It is important that NSF anticipate addressing the specific issues that arise as part of the

termination and closeout of a facility at the end of its scientifically competitive life. While not part

of the annual budgeting process, this information informs the longer-term strategic planning at

the NSF Division and directorate levels.

SYSTEM INTEGRATION, COMMISSIONING, TESTING AND ACCEPTANCE

System Integration, Commissioning, Testing and Acceptance are awardee functions, and are an

essential part of complex construction/acquisition projects. Failure to perform them, or to

adequately plan for them, can lead to serious cost and schedule overruns. The awardee is

required to describe its plans for System Integration, Commissioning, Testing and Acceptance

in the PEP. The PO approves these plans, but is also required to include periodic review of

progress in these areas:

 System Integration – combining and coordinating the many physical and performance

interfaces in a project;

 Commissioning - substantiating the capability of the facility to function as designed by

bringing various system components on line first sequentially and then in simultaneous

operations to study and affirm the interaction among subsystems;

 Testing - assessing the operation of the facility by applying the criteria established in the

PEP to measure acceptable performance; and

 Conditions for Acceptance - specifying the expected condition of the facility, its

performance attributes, the tests the awardee will perform, and the data it will consider

prior to accepting the facility or components of the facility and declaring it ready for

Operations and Maintenance. In some cases, a phased approach to acceptance will be

required. For example, for distributed-but-integrated facilities or for facilities with

complex instrumentation and equipment, the PO will want the awardee to demonstrate

performance and perform acceptance procedures for part of the system prior to

proceeding with construction and/or acquisition of other systems. The PO, in

consultation with the relevant Division Director and AD/office head, will determine

whether the awardee will conduct the tests and accept the facility or whether the PO will

participate in the testing and accept the facility on behalf of the government.

Frequently, some aspects of construction and/or acquisition overlap with initial operation. A

detailed Transition Plan should be developed by the awardee and incorporated into the PEP at

least one year prior to the anticipated commencement of commissioning activities. Elements of

the Transition Plan are first addressed during Conceptual Design, and become progressively

more detailed as planning evolves. During construction, the PO reviews the plan, utilizing

internal staff, external experts, consultants, external review panels and the resources of the

DDLFP.58 The review of the Transition Plan considers the following questions:

 Will the project have parallel periods of construction/acquisition and operations, with

some components coming on line earlier than others?

58 Optional for projects not constructed with MREFC funds.
37

 What is the project’s strategy for facility acceptance, operational readiness review, site

safety and security, and training of operational staff and members of the research

community utilizing the facility?

 What are project plans for transitioning staff from construction to operational support

activities? Is there a plan to bring in personnel with the requisite technical skills to

operate and support the facility at appropriate times? Have training needs been

addressed?

 What risks to the project might result from contractor interference during periods of

beneficial use or occupancy as construction activities conclude?

 What contracting strategies are employed to ensure that priority tasks are completed in a

timely way and do not delay operational readiness?

 What are project plans for obtaining use and occupancy permits, or satisfying other local

regulatory criteria?

 Do the budgets reflect a proper allocation between construction/acquisition and

operations?

For projects funded through the MREFC account, even if limited operations are undertaken, the

changeover from MREFC funding to R&RA and/or EHR funding does not have to occur until the

facility has been accepted and the PO ensures that the budget is estimated accordingly. Where

R&RA and/or EHR funding will be used prior to acceptance, the PO will ensure that the budget

justification clearly describes the changeover and that the earlier changeover is estimated and

budgeted accordingly.

PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS FOR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

In order to avoid funding gaps, formal proposals to operate a facility should be prepared well in

advance of the anticipated start date for operations: as much as two years prior to the end of

construction and commissioning activities. POs and directorates/offices are encouraged to take

into account the time needed for internal NSF review, including NSB review, and offer guidance

to the community. Estimates of the funds for operations and maintenance are provided even in

the planning stages of a facility. The potential awardee and/or the PO need to establish a

dialogue with the user community to determine the resources needed to fully exploit the facility.

In addition, the proposal should include:

 All costs to operate, maintain and periodically upgrade the facility, its instrumentation

and the IT components, including cost and approximate time of investment. (Note: A PO

can expect that IT components will need to be upgraded at least every three to five

years.);

 The costs of an in-house research program (as a separate line item in the budget), if

applicable, including an indication of how the overall research program will be managed

and how research program resources will be allocated;

 Education and outreach plans and costs; and

 A detailed management plan for operations of the facility, including the roles of key staff

and plans for advisory committees.

The review of the proposal includes a realistic assessment of the costs to operate and maintain

the facility in a safe and effective manner, consistent with NSF’s Government Performance and

Results Act (GPRA) goals for facilities. The PO is also responsible for oversight of operational

facilities through the various reviews and reports described in the IMP. In addition to following
38

the established NSF procedures, the PO considers (with the assistance of external reviewers

with expertise in managing comparably scaled facilities) these questions:

 Is the facility ready for reliable operations and is the infrastructure (including personnel

requirements) adequate to execute the proposed work plan?

 Do the operations and maintenance plans allow for optimal utilization of the facility by

users (e.g., scheduled operating time versus down-time)?

 Is there an appropriate balance between in-house research and research of external

users?

 Are safety (including IT security and security of the physical plant), environmental and

health issues, if any, addressed?

 Are plans for securing human subjects clearances included, if applicable (e.g.,

assessments of education-related activities)?

 Have all costs been considered and estimated and is the available funding sufficient, or

is some adjustment needed?

Throughout the operational stage, the awardee operates and maintains the facility in

accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the Cooperative Agreement. The PO,

together with the Division of Grants and Agreements and/or the Division of Acquisition and

Cooperative Support, drafts the Cooperative Agreement that will govern the operational phase

of the project. The Cooperative Agreement will include plans for NSF oversight, reflect the

needs of the facility users, and address how the user program will be managed and how user

time will be allocated. The PO also maintains an awareness of emerging technical, managerial

and financial issues through contact with the facility managers and users.

PROCEDURES FOR RENEWAL OR TERMINATION OF AN OPERATING LARGE FACILITY

At least two years prior to the expiration of an award for operations of a facility,59 the PO will

plan a review of the results of research and education, the affected community’s needs, and the

facility’s management, including the performance of its managing organization. The reviews will

be used to determine whether to renew the award, upgrade the facility, recompete the award or

terminate the facility. If the reviews show that the facility is of low priority relative to other

funding opportunities within the field(s) of research served by the facility, or is otherwise not

meeting its goals and objectives, the PO, working with the Division Director and AD/office head,

will prepare a plan for either upgrading the facility’s capabilities or terminating support.

If the reviews show that the facility remains a high priority and has been successful in meeting

its goals and objectives, the originating organization considers whether renewal of the operating

agreement with the awardee institution or recompetition is in the best interests of NSF and the

affected community.60

59 The PO should use his or her judgment and consider the complexity of the facility in determining whether to begin

the review process earlier.

60 In deciding whether to renew or recompete, the PO should consider that the National Science Board’s strong

support for the principle that expiring awards are to be recompeted unless it is judged to be in the best interest of U.S.

science and engineering not to do so. Management of Federally Funded Research and Development Centers

(FFRDCs) cannot be renewed or terminated until a comprehensive review is performed. The review should meet the

requirements outlined in the Federal Acquisition Regulations (“FAR” - Part 35.017-4, Reviewing FFRDCs): An

FFRDC review should include the following: (1) An examination of the sponsor's special technical needs and mission

requirements that are performed by the FFRDC to determine if and at what level they continue to exist; (2)
39

In most cases of recompetition, the managing organization of a facility is required to compete

with other organizations for continuation of the management of the facility. In the event that a

decision is made to recompete or to terminate support for a facility, the PO will give the

incumbent awardee as much notice as possible, but not less than one year, so that all

necessary arrangements to transfer (in the case of unsuccessful recompetition) or terminate

obligations to vendors and employees can be planned and implemented.

The PO analyzes the costs and benefits of the facility, taking into consideration the following

issues.

 How much does the community need the facility, and is the community strong and

actively engaged in utilizing it?

 Is the facility meeting the research and education goals and objectives originally

proposed?

 Will meeting the goals and objectives place the United States in a leading position within

the research areas served by the facility?

 Is the facility a high priority of the field, as established by long-range planning?

 Is the facility operating in an efficient and cost-effective manner, or are there alternative,

more efficient and cost-effective ways to meet the need?

 What research opportunities and education opportunities elsewhere are being lost by

continued support of this facility?

The PO analyzes what can and what needs to be done in light of the available funding, and

considers the following options:

 recompete the award;

 renew NSF support;

 renew NSF support and plan upgrades to the facility;

 renew NSF support to allow operations to transition to self-sufficiency (through, for

example, institutional, industrial or other modes of support);

 renew NSF support to allow operations to ramp-down, leading to termination; or

 terminate NSF support.

In the case of a recompetition, a renewal proposal is received from the awardee institution, and

possibly from other institutions. The proposal(s) is merit reviewed.

DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS

The awardee is responsible for ensuring that a document management system is in place that

provides for retention and retrieval of essential and significant documentation related to the

project. awardee documentation may take many forms, from informal e-mail communications to

formal letters, bids and contracts. NSF strongly prefers that this system be electronically

Consideration of alternative sources to meet the sponsor's needs; (3) An assessment of the efficiency and

effectiveness of the FFRDC in meeting the sponsor's needs, including the FFRDC's ability to maintain its objectivity,

independence, quick response capability, currency in its field(s) of expertise, and familiarity with the needs of its

sponsor; (4) An assessment of the adequacy of the FFRDC management in ensuring a cost-effective operation; and

(5) A determination that the criteria for establishing the FFRDC continue to be satisfied and that the sponsoring

agreement is in compliance with FAR 35.017-1.
40

accessible via Internet, rather than paper-based, but recognizes that some paper records are

necessary. The documentation system should not only aid in identifying the types of documents

to retain, but should also contain appropriate controls over official documents, such as

drawings, to ensure that only the most recent drawings are being used and that only authorized

personnel are able to access and modify them. A sound document management system will

help prevent miscommunications and misunderstandings and will ensure that the facility

operators have the information required to maintain the facility.

awardees should retain financial records, supporting documents, statistical records and other

records pertinent to a grant for a period of three years after submission of the Final Project

Report. In addition, access to any pertinent books, documents, papers and records should be

made available to the NSF Director and the Comptroller General of the United States or any of

their duly authorized representatives to make audits, examinations, excerpts and transcripts.

The documentation required, and the responsibility for producing and maintaining it, varies

within the facility life cycle. During Development, the PO is responsible for producing and

maintaining documentation related to review and approval of awards. Managing the

documentation pertaining to the review and processing of proposals and awards is the PO’s

responsibility throughout the life of the project. NSF documentation should include all

partnership and other agreements, standard jackets in the NSF-required format, the IMP, the

Baseline Project Definition (typically defined in the PEP), the record of oversight (including all

reviews and reports) and significant project correspondence.

During Construction, essential and significant documentation includes the record of any decision

affecting the cost, schedule or performance baseline. At a minimum, the following forms of

documentation should be retained:

 memoranda of Understanding and any other project agreements or deals;

 architectural, engineering, shop and as-built drawings;

 correspondence identifying problems, the resolution process and the final decision;

 contingency log;

 change requests and approvals; and

 system integration, commissioning, testing and acceptance plans and results.

During Operations & Maintenance, the awardee documents facility performance in terms of

(1) the facility itself – e.g., historical record of all costs related to maintenance (preventive,

deferred, repairs and/or emergency), operating time, and scheduled as well as

unscheduled down time, and

(2) use of the facility for research and education (including a record of users that includes

the name, affiliation, funding agency, award number and annual award amount for each

user).

REQUIREMENTS FOR OVERSIGHT, REVIEWS AND REPORTING

Oversight, reviews and reporting requirements change as a facility moves through its life cycle

and differ substantially between the Construction and Operations Stages. The awardee is

responsible for complying with the reporting requirements contained in the Cooperative

Agreement, e.g., technical and financial reporting, GPRA reporting and final reporting and
41

closeout requirements for termination of the award. The awardee is also responsible for

providing internal oversight of its own activities. This may require internal reporting and reviews

by committees established by the awardee institution for the purpose of oversight.61

Reviews and reporting are an important part of the process that allows the PO to monitor

performance and compliance with project goals. Due to the complex nature of facilities, the

level of involvement will generally be considerably greater than for a NSF grant. The PO has

continuous responsibility for substantial involvement with the facility in accordance with the IMP

and through various reviews and reports, such as consultation and coordination with the

DDLFP, consultation with the Facilities panel, and periodic updates to the MREFC Panel (if

applicable) and NSB.

Review and reporting plans and costs should be identified in the PO’s IMP and in the awardee’s

PEP so that they can be adequately considered in the project budget and schedule. The PO

should clearly define the reporting requirements that are the responsibility of the awardee in the

Cooperative Agreement and these requirements should be noted as milestones on the project

master schedule for construction. The Project Director adheres to the awardee’s institutional

practices regarding financial and business operations controls,62 and internal reporting (e.g., to

the Principal Investigator, Dean, etc., as applicable and required).

It is important that consideration be given to Conflict of Interest rules and Privacy Act restrictions

when distributing and sharing reports containing proprietary or confidential information.

Frequency and Content of Reports:

Reports are generally provided on a monthly and/or quarterly basis, with a comprehensive

annual report provided by a predetermined date. Some projects, particularly those with

construction activities or frequent changes in design, will need more frequent reporting intervals.

During the Construction Stage, the Project Director, who is responsible for executing and

controlling the project in accordance with the PEP and the Cooperative Agreement, reports to

the PO on a periodic basis (monthly for MREFC-funded projects and no less than quarterly in

other cases). Those reports should include the following:

 summary of financial and technical status – work accomplished during the reporting

period, including major scientific and/or technical accomplishments and milestones

achieved;

 comparison of actual cost and schedule to planned cost and schedule, using EVMS

methodology;

 review of current or anticipated problem areas and corrective actions;

 management information such as changes in key personnel, subcontracts and

subcontractor performance, and any other information about which the PO needs to be

aware; and

 concerns, upcoming milestones or project deliverables.

For MREFC projects in the Construction Stage, the PO is responsible for providing the DDLFP a

monthly written summary of this information. The DDLFP provides the information to NSF’s

61 See also the Reporting Requirements section in Chapter V for more detail on reporting requirements, and

Guidelines for Planning External Reviews of NSF’s Large Facilities for a description of best practices.

62 See “Guidelines for Conducting Total Business Systems Reviews of NSF’s Large Facilities” in Chapter V.
42

Chief Financial officer, and the office of the Director. Smaller-scale projects that are not funded

through the MREFC account will provide status reports to the PO with a frequency and level of

detail defined in their respective IMPs. In every case, the PO is responsible for keeping the

appropriate NSF staff (Grants and Agreements or Contracting officer, Division Director, AD,

PAT members, etc.) informed of the project status.

In executing and controlling the project, the awardee manages the project to the Baseline

Project Definition and cost and schedule. The awardee will notify the PO of cost and schedule

variances on a periodic basis (monthly, quarterly or annually, depending upon the project’s cost,

schedule and complexity).

Negative variances exceeding 10 percent should be accompanied by an explanation and a

proposed plan for recovery or accommodation of the cost and schedule shortfalls (e.g., use of

contingency, de-scope). If maintaining the baseline is not possible, the awardee will consult

with the PO to determine whether re-baselining the project is warranted. When deciding which

course of action to pursue, the PO will need to balance the effect of failing to achieve the

project’s performance goals against the impact on the research and education proposed for the

completed facility.

The PO should also request approval, via a memo to the Division Director and AD/office head,

prior to authorizing re-baselining a project. This activity may require notification to the MREFC

Panel (if applicable), the Director, NSB, OMB and Congress.63 Variances may result from many

factors – for example, inadequate project planning or management, or factors not within the

Project Director’s (or manager’s) control. Examples of the latter include failure to identify the

complexity in particular tasks (such as integration), failure to budget for adequate labor,

materials or time versus unexpected increases in the cost of labor and/or materials,

unavailability of labor and/or materials, weather, etc.

If additional funds or time will be requested, the review and approval process followed during

pre-construction planning is repeated. Once a re-baselined Project Definition has been

approved, the re-baselined requirements replace the Baseline Project Definition as the standard

against which progress is measured. Consequently, costs exceeding budgeted amounts in the

initial Baseline Project Definition are not referred as “overruns” once a new project baseline has

been implemented by the project management and accepted by NSF.

Use of contingency is an appropriate means to deal with project uncertainties during

construction. When computing cost and schedule variances, one should compare earned value

to planned value. However, when a task costs more than expected and contingency funds are

needed to complete the task, the original planned value is adjusted by the addition of the

contingency funds used. The adjusted planned value is then used to compute variances. This

adjustment ensures that projects are not “penalized” in financial status reporting for utilizing

contingency. Adjustments may also be necessary to account for approved change orders that

affect the project’s cost or schedule.

63 See the section on Financial Management in Chapter V for more detail regarding the process involved.
43

Reviewing Awardee Performance:

The awardee is expected to provide appropriate internal oversight of its own activities and is

expected to comply with the reporting requirements contained in the Cooperative Agreement

(e.g., technical and financial reporting, and final reporting and closeout requirements for

termination of the award). In addition, reviews and reporting are an important part of the

oversight process that allows the PO to monitor performance and compliance with project goals.

Through the terms and conditions of the Cooperative Agreement, the PO requires the awardee

to participate in periodic external reviews that advise NSF on the status and anticipated future

performance of the project. Operational facilities are typically reviewed on an annual basis, but

may be reviewed on a semi-annual or even award-period basis, as judged appropriate by the

PO, documented in the IMP and approved by the Facilities Panel. (The IMP of an MREFCfunded project requires approval of the NSF Director. Projects not funded through the MREFC

account require approval by the sponsoring directorate(s) or office(s), unless otherwise

specified.) The PO typically identifies the charge for the expert panel review, in conformance

with the NSF Internal Management Plan for oversight of the project, and coordinates the review

panel’s membership. The PO consults with and involves the DDLFP in the review process as

appropriate.

Careful consideration should be given to the selection of independent reviewers; in all cases the

skill sets of the reviewers should be matched to the type and kind of review to be conducted.

Broad programmatic review panels charged with reviewing all aspects of a project will generally

have representation from the academic and broader national/international research community,

as well as experts in administrative aspects of facilities/project management. A review panel

focusing on specific administrative or technical aspects of a project would have a different set of

skills.

The PO will typically use a standard review “template.” (See in Chapter V – Guidelines for

Planning and Executing External Reviews of NSF’s Large Facilities.) These well-defined review

formats provide a broad outline against which the project can be compared and checklists that

can be used to assess the status of the project. These reviews can be particularly helpful in the

pre-award phase in ensuring that the project is ready to be implemented. Exceptional

circumstances may arise that necessitate some alternate format. In this case, the PO consults

with the PAT to constitute a review charge and format tailored to meet the specific requirements

of the review.

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA):

In accordance with legislative and OMB requirements, NSF developed goals to measure

construction/upgrade and operations performance. Information related to these goals is

collected from awardees via the “Performance Data Reports” module of the FastLane Project

Reports system. Performance reports are currently required from all NSF-supported facilities

undergoing construction/upgrade that incur total costs in excess of $5 million, and from facilities

that receive more than $8 million per year in operations support. Each year, NSF uses the

lessons learned from previous years to determine whether its facilities goals need to be refined.

For example, the following performance goals were in effect for FY 2006 GPRA reporting:
44

Activity Performance Goal

CONSTRUCTION/UPGRADE For 90% of completed construction, acquisition and upgrade

projects, keep any negative cost and schedule variances to less

than 10% of the approved project plan.

OPERATIONS For 90% of operational facilities, keep scheduled operating time

lost to less than 10%.

PARTNERSHIPS

For both MREFC and smaller projects, partnerships are an essential consideration – beginning

at project inception. Partnerships may take many forms, but typically include coordinated

funding from states or state institutions, other federal agencies, non-governmental entities, and

foreign funding agencies. International partnerships are generally the most complex.

Key issues in these partnerships, whether international or the result of interagency or state

collaboration, present several important challenges that the PO needs to consider carefully.

The first is “culture shock.” The science or engineering cultures in different countries will

generally exhibit great variations in procedures when it comes to funding, managing and

overseeing, constructing, and operating a facility. Differences often include lack of mutual

understanding or considerably different contexts for defining the role and function of project

management. It is typically very challenging for each nation to manage its part of the project

unless there is a means for integrated management and oversight by the central Project

Manager.

The Project Manager should be in place before funds are released and, to be most effective,

should be given budget authority (or authority over in-kind resources) and should not simply act

as a coordinator. In terms of oversight, reviews of project status by U.S. agencies are not

universally accepted. U.S. agencies use reviews heavily, but not all countries do. In some

countries, reviews that uncover problems may be received without a sense of urgency and may

not be acted upon quickly. U.S. partner agencies may be able to insist upon resolution of

issues when playing a majority role in funding; if not, other steps should be taken. Full project

transparency is essential to success.

A second important issue is early negotiation with international partners. There is a need to

start with a clear understanding by all partners as to how the construction project is to be

managed and the facility is to be operated. It is also important to know how agencies in

different countries view the project in terms of shared goals, the science or engineering case for

the project, and its priority. If participating partner countries all rate the priority of a project at the

highest level, then commitments carry more weight.

Funding risks associated with international partnerships should be assessed and contingency

plans developed regarding potential changes in commitment. Finally, early negotiation also

provides a means to establish and maintain regular agency-to-agency contacts, providing an

early understanding of funding pressures and other emerging pressures in each country.
45

The NSF Office of International Science and Engineering should be advised of potential

international partnerships early in the process and kept apprised of significant developments.

Project staff should take advantage of the substantial expertise of that office. (For example,

international projects may need help with visa-related issues affecting students or other project

participants, or there could be cost issues relating to assessment of import duties on

internationally shipped items.) In addition, relevant officials should:

 use established organizations to initiate and foster international participation (e.g.,

organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, International Union of Pure

and Applied Physics, G7 or G8, and the organization of American States); and

 explore office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) involvement if geopolitical

ramifications warrant.

Partnership funding: Funding of projects involving partnerships is obviously a central

consideration. International partner agencies need to understand the funding processes in the

different countries involved. The complexity of the NSF process can lead to misunderstandings

regarding the schedule of funding and project approvals. Because of the great variation among

countries as to how labor costs are counted, it is good practice to adopt standard costing

techniques for equipment, labor, commissioning and operations. Memoranda of Understanding

(MOUs) need to be developed, detailing the foreign contributions. In some cases, these

contributions may be in cash or in-kind level of effort; but deliverables should be clearly

specified and the contributions should be valued in U.S. equivalent terms (including all labor

costs) for projects in which NSF is the lead agency.

As with all such projects, contingency funds (or their equivalent) need to be identified by all

partners. There is great variation in practice among countries, again because labor costs may

or may not be included in contributions to the project. This can have a great impact. For

example, in a cost-overrun situation, it may become expeditious to simply stretch the project

out. This may work for one country, resulting in less focus on schedule issues; but it generally

does not work for U.S. projects where “standing army” costs are directly allocated to the total

cost for construction of a facility.

In addition, when partner funding is in cash, variations in exchange rate can have a large effect

on the ability of a given country to meet its commitment on deliverables. Therefore, scope

contingencies need to be explored. When international partners do not include adequate

contingency, and the United States does, funding “caps,” agreed upon in advance, are an

appropriate policy. (Note that although caps may enforce discipline, they may have other

effects. For example, when there are schedule slips and “standing army” costs rise, caps can

limit the deliverables that may be provided. Strict adherence to caps may therefore compromise

the overall performance goals.)

Finally, a facility’s project management and operations plans should be well understood by all

partners. When different countries have responsibilities for separate subsystems, strong

system integration and comprehensive interface documents become very important. The

change-control process needs to be clearly understood. Change control is made very complex

because performers in one country may be ill equipped to handle or adapt to required changes.

It is also very important to establish a sound schedule baseline and adhere to it.
46

For partnerships with organizations or agencies in the United States, the following activities are

advised.

 Evaluate NSF’s role (NSF’s authority and responsibility vary depending on its status as

executive agent or as a majority, equal or minority partner). Assess risks and develop a

plan to address them, e.g., implementation of controls that limit NSF’s exposure to

overruns (see Chapter V - Risk Assessment and Management).

 Ensure that all partners understand the review and approval processes of the other

partners.

 Prior to entering into a partnership, develop and execute an MOU.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU):

MOUs are broad, general agreements between NSF and other parties to pursue activities of

mutual interest and benefit; cooperate in areas where science and engineering interests

coincide; and provide a framework for cooperation. A typical MOU includes:

 the purpose of the Understanding; authority of the parties to enter into an

Understanding;

 scope of the Understanding, including a project description and the respective

responsibilities of each party for funding, management and oversight (including

procedures for resolving conflicts and dealing with defaults);

 rights of each party with respect to access, ownership and intellectual property; means

for resolving disputes; and

 a termination clause.

MOUs are developed by the PO and cleared according to NSF internal procedures.
47

V. Special Topics and Supplementary Materials

This chapter contains directions to extensive supplementary information on special topics

having to do with NSF’s role in planning and oversight of large facility projects. The hyperlinked

modules contain important explanatory and procedural information. The materials are

presented in a tutorial format to be of particular benefit to individuals newly involved with large

facility projects.

The materials provided here are revisions to existing modules that have appeared on the Large

Facility Projects pages of NSF’s internal Web site. These modules are being revised to make

them consistent with the newly released “Guidelines for Planning and Managing the Major

Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account” (Chapter II of this document), and

also consistent with the material in Chapter III.

ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF NSF STAFF INVOLVED IN THE MANAGEMENT AND

OVERSIGHT OF LARGE FACILITIES

The roles and respective responsibilities of all NSF staff, and the awardee Institution, are

discussed in detail and by life-cycle stage. This document provides specific guidance and

suggestions, elaborating on the concepts in Chapters I-IV. It includes a detailed explanation of

the primary role of the PO (also variously called the “Program Manager” or “Program Director”

within NSF). This module also elaborates on the roles of other individuals – such as the Grants

officer, PAT, Business Oversight Team and DDLFP – who support and work with the PO

throughout the life cycle of a large facility project. As a supporting module to the rest of the

Manual, the intent of this document is to avoid replication of information already provided there

while adding context and breadth.

RISK MANAGEMENT GUIDE

Risk management is concerned with future events whose exact outcomes are unknown, and

how to deal with a range of possible outcomes. In general, outcomes are categorized as

favorable or unfavorable, and risk management is the art and science of planning, assessing

and handling future events to maximize favorable outcomes. The alternative to risk

management is crisis management, a resource-intensive process that is normally constrained

by a restricted set of available options.

The objective of this document is to provide an overview of the subject of project risk

management from an NSF perspective. It is not intended to be a comprehensive discussion of

the subject. Additional sources of information on Risk Management are included in Appendix A

of the Risk Management Guide. Briefly, the objectives of this document are:

Note: As of the May 2007 release of this Large Facilities Manual, the modules described

in this chapter remain under development or review. Hyperlinks to the modules will be

added as the modules are cleared for release.
48

 to provide an overview of the risk-management process from an NSF perspective;

 to explain the responsibilities of NSF POs in the area of risk management;

 to enable the PO to understand how and when risk assessment should be performed

and when a Risk Management Plan should be written and what it should address; and

 to help the PO understand the benefits of risk management and its importance in

ensuring project success.

DEFINITION AND USE OF CONTINGENCY RESOURCES IN NSF FACILITY

CONSTRUCTION

Contingency generally falls into three categories: budget contingency, schedule contingency

and scope contingency. This module defines the circumstances under which contingency

planning and budget should be undertaken and the method by which contingency funds should

be allocated, consistent with OMB regulations and sound project management principles.

GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT EXECUTION PLANS FOR LARGE

FACILITIES

This module provides an overview of NSF’s expectations about PEPs for POs, Grants and

Agreements officers and others involved in overseeing a large facility project and assessing the

project management plans of an awardee. These plans are usually provided, at least in

preliminary fashion, as part of the proposal for construction of a large project. This plan can be

fine-tuned during the period following approval of the award and prior to undertaking

construction activities, through interactions between the awardee, the NSF PO and the Grants

and Agreements officer that define NSF’s expectations.

GUIDELINES FOR DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNAL MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR LARGE

FACILITIES

This module provides guidance to the PO on topics to be included in an IMP grouped by lifecycle stage. The IMP is the primary document that describes how NSF will oversee

development, construction, operation and eventually termination of support for a major facility.

The requirement to develop an IMP is described in Chapter II and Chapter III for MREFC and

non-MREFC projects respectively. Two primary purposes are served by development of an

IMP.

 It defines in specific detail how NSF will conduct oversight of a project; and

 It provides budgetary estimates for developing, constructing and operating the facility,

identifies termination liabilities, and lays out a strategy for financing these activities as

well as the concomitant NSF oversight requirements.

GUIDELINES FOR IT SECURITY OF NSF'S LARGE FACILITIES

NSF has responsibility for oversight of facilities it constructs and operates, including associated

IT Infrastructure. This module describes what NSF considers to be a fundamental set of IT
49

security requirements that facilities should consider in developing and deploying their IT plans,

policies and procedures. These minimal requirements and their associated evaluation criteria,

as provided by the facility and agreed to by NSF, are used as part of NSF’s facility oversight and

review process. This module documents NSF’s expectation for the awardee and PO oversight

for the implementation and monitoring of cyber security best practices. These expectations

extend over the full life cycle of an award, and are appropriately modified as the award passes

through various stages of its life cycle.

GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING AND EXECUTING EXTERNAL REVIEWS OF NSF'S LARGE

FACILITIES

This module describes the process for evaluation and review of all NSF large facility projects

proposed for construction, under construction or currently in operation. This document provides

assistance to the PO in preparing and planning a review of the non-research related aspect of

the project’s management, budgets, schedule and related activities. The information contains

guidance for three situations: reviews of facilities in planning; reviews of construction activity;

and operational reviews of ongoing facilities. A description of the overall process of planning

and carrying out an external review of a large facility project is provided as an aid to the PO or

associated staff who may be unfamiliar with these processes or need a reference source on

best practices.

The evaluation and reviews include assessment of management, schedules and budgets, as

well as other matters relevant to a large facility project, such as scrutiny of the project baseline

for construction activity. It does not address the intellectual merit or broader impacts criteria

used to select the project for support, but rather focuses on evaluation of the awardee’s

planning and implementation activities.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN LARGE FACILITY PLANNING

Awareness of, and strict adherence to, all relevant environmental regulations are extremely

important considerations in the planning, construction and operation of facilities. This module

provides guidance to POs in dealing with environmental regulations that are often encountered

in planning and budgeting for new facility construction. This material contains extensive

introductory information about general issues. POs are encouraged to contact the office of the

General Counsel for project-specific guidance.

TIMELINE FOR PLANNING AND MANAGING THE MREFC ACCOUNT

This module defines when various preconstruction planning activities should be completed in

order to commence construction in a particular future fiscal year. Although the majority of those

activities proceed at a pace specific to the needs of an individual project, late-stage planning

activities following completion of a project’s Preliminary Design are paced by the process for

developing NSF’s annual Budget Request to Congress. This module explains key features of

that process that are of particular interest to those involved with MREFC projects.

GUIDELINES FOR REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

This module summarizes the reporting requirements NSF typically imposes on a project during

construction and operation. This information is provided so that proposing organizations and
50

POs can assess the project-specific needs that should be addressed and can provide

appropriate budgets so that these requirements can be satisfactorily accomplished.

GUIDELINES FOR FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

This module describes the NSF requirements for financial status reporting, including a detailed

explanation of the processes and internal software NSF uses to track and report obligations of

funding, by life-cycle stage, so that the total project cost for a facility can be tracked. A detailed

explanation of earned value management reporting is also provided.

GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING TOTAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS REVIEWS OF NSF’S

LARGE FACILITIES

The purpose of this document is to define and establish the procedures for the planning,

execution and follow-up activities associated with conducting Total Business Systems Reviews

(TBSRs). The TBSR is designed to provide guidance to awardees as well as NSF

administrators in determining and employing best business practices by the awardee Institution.

These reviews are intended to ensure that the business systems of NSF awardees are effective

in meeting administrative responsibilities as well as satisfying other federal requirements. The

TBSR itself is a versatile assessment vehicle by which NSF can evaluate the “health” of its

awardees’ business systems.

The reviews are also intended to provide an opportunity for cross-fertilization of ideas through

the identification of best practices, and serve to refocus awardees on the importance of

administrative quality. This module also defines the roles and responsibilities of NSF staff

assigned to TBSR activities and identifies core and targeted review areas.

GUIDELINES FOR USE OF OMB INFLATORS IN PLANNING CONSTRUCTION OF LARGE

FACILITY PROJECTS

In agreement with OMB, NSF has identified inflation factors for large facility projects for both the

construction/acquisition phase and the operations phase. OMB provides this information to

NSF approximately twice a year. This document provides hyperlinks to that information and

instructions for its use in budget planning.
51

VI. Appendices

Appendix 1 - NSF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The following NSF officers and organizations are involved throughout the conception,

development and implementation of an MREFC project:

NSF Program Officer (PO) exercises primary oversight responsibility within NSF for all aspects

of the project. The PO facilitates community development of research proposals for large facility

projects. The PO also organizes external reviews of developmental research, writes and

implements the IMP for oversight and financial support of a candidate facility project, and

oversees facility construction, commissioning and operation. The National Science Foundation

Authorization Act of 2002 [Public Law 107-368, Section 14(c)] restricts the choice of POs

overseeing MREFC-funded activities to permanent NSF employees (i.e. individuals whose

appointments are not temporary).

Assistant Director (AD) or Office Head of the Originating Organization utilizes community

inputs, discipline-specific studies, advisory committee recommendations and internal NSF

considerations to prioritize the opportunities represented by the candidate project relative to

competing opportunities and demands for NSF resources. The AD determines that the scientific

merit and relative importance of the proposed facility are sufficiently strong to justify

advancement of the project to Readiness Stage, and authorizes the PO to proceed with

organizing the development and external review of a PDP and with updating the IMP to explain

how NSF will oversee and fund further development. The AD reviews and approves the IMP

prior to its submission to the Facilities Panel. The AD determines whether to propose a project

to the MREFC Panel as a candidate for future construction funding, based on the project’s

relative scientific importance and on the originating organization’s commitment to preconstruction planning activities and eventual facility operation and use. The AD is regularly

updated by the PO on the status of the project throughout the remainder of its life-cycle phases,

and brings critical issues to the attention of the NSF OD and NSB as appropriate.

Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects (DDLFP) scrutinizes management aspects of

large facility projects to assure the NSF Director and Chief Financial officer that proposed

projects are well planned, and that projects selected for construction are properly scoped and

managed during construction and operation. The DDLFP works with the PO to plan, carry out,

and assess the results from external reviews of the project and assists the PO on all project

management issues. In close collaboration with NSF senior management, the DDLFP also

leads the development and implementation of policies, guidelines and procedures for the

oversight of large facility projects. Specific Responsibilities of the DDLFP are outlined in

Appendix 5.

Project Advisory Team (PAT) assists the PO in the planning, review and management of the

MREFC project. The PAT advises and assists the PO in creating and updating the IMP,

planning and assessing internal reviews, and providing counsel on all aspects of the project as

requested. The team should be composed of experts who are familiar with the technical,

management, legal, legislative and administrative issues associated with various types of

infrastructure projects. This team should meet regularly to review the status of the project.
52

Contracting Officer/Agreements Officer has authority, subject to statutory limitations, to award

and administer cooperative agreements and/or contracts. As a member of the PAT, this NSF

officer: participates in management reviews, risk assessment and issues management, and

plans and coordinates development of award documents from early planning stages through

award administration and closeout. The officer negotiates terms and conditions, reviews

business proposals and budgets, significant sub-awards, MOUs and partnership agreements.

The officer also monitors awards for compliance with the most current NSF financial and

administrative policies and procedures.

Originating Organization(s) are NSF directorates or offices, and by extension their divisions or

sections, that propose projects for funding through the MREFC account or other sources. The

divisions have primary responsibility for overseeing planning, review, oversight and funding of

large facilities. Their responsibilities include coordination of planning; serving as the interface

with relevant scientific and engineering communities; preparing all required documentation for

project consideration and approval; conducting merit review of proposals; fully funding costs of

operations, maintenance and relevant programmatic activities; and overseeing the project.

Facilities Panel reviews and provides feedback on the initial IMP for each MREFC project or

large facility project (as requested), as well as subsequent IMP revisions. The panel provides

written comments to the originating organization and may share the comments with the MREFC

Panel and/or the office of the Director. The role of the Facilities Panel is primarily advisory. The

Facilities Panel is chaired by the DDLFP. The other members of the panel are typically three

experienced business operations personnel and three experienced programmatic personnel, all

of whom have prior experience in the technical and administrative aspects of large project

oversight. The Facilities Panel also provides preliminary review of the materials submitted to

the MREFC Panel, DRB and NSB when requested.

MREFC Panel – provides governance of the overall MREFC process and reviews specific

cases as presented by the originating organization(s). The Panel consists of the NSF Deputy

Director (Chair), the ADs, program office heads, the Chief Financial officer, and in non-voting

capacity the DDLFP, the General Counsel, and the Directors of the Office of International

Science and Engineering, Office of Legislative and Public Affairs, and the Office of Institutional

Resource Management.

Director’s Review Board (DRB) reviews and approves the documentation associated with all

projects proposed to the NSB for funding, including MREFC projects. The DRB is composed of

the NSF Deputy Director, three ADs/office heads serving on a rotating basis, the Chief Financial

officer, a representative from the Office of the General Counsel, a staff advisor from the Office

of the Director and a DRB Executive Secretary.

NSF Director has ultimate responsibility for the obligation of funds from the MREFC account

and for proposing new MREFC projects to the NSB, OMB and Congress. The Director

approves all IMPs, as well as all materials submitted to the NSB, OMB or Congress.

National Science Board (NSB) establishes policy, reviews and approves MREFC account

budgets, and reviews and approves specific MREFC projects for funding. NSB is an

independent body established by Congress in 1950 to establish policies for NSF. Within NSB,

the Committee on Programs and Plans oversees NSF program initiatives and major new

projects and facilities. The NSB sets the priority order of projects recommended for

construction.
53

Appendix 2 - RANKING CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING MREFC PROJECTS

First Ranking: Scientific and Technical Criteria Assessed by Researchers in a Field or

Interdisciplinary Area (e.g., at the NSF Division level)

 Which projects have the most scientific merit, potential and opportunities within a field or

interdisciplinary area?

 Which projects are the most technologically ready?

 Are the scientific credentials of the proposers of the highest rank?

 Are the project-management capabilities of the proposal team of the highest quality?

Second Ranking: Agency Strategic Criteria Assessed Across Related Fields (e.g., at the NSF

directorate level)

 Which projects will have the greatest impact on scientific advances in this set of related

fields taking into account the importance of balance among fields for NSF's portfolio

management in the nation's interest?

 Which projects include opportunities to serve the needs of researchers from multiple

disciplines or the ability to facilitate interdisciplinary research?

 Which projects have major commitments from other agencies or countries that should be

considered?

 Which projects have the greatest potential for education and workforce development?

 Which projects have the most readiness for further development and construction?

Third Ranking: National Criteria Assessed Across All Fields (e.g., at the overall NSF level)

 Which projects are in new and emerging fields that have the most potential to be

transformative? Which projects have the most potential to change how research is

conducted or to expand fundamental science and engineering frontiers?

 Which projects have the greatest potential for maintaining U.S. leadership in key science

and engineering fields?

 Which projects produce the greatest benefits in numbers of researchers, educators and

students enabled?

 Which projects most need to be undertaken in the near term? Which ones have the most

current windows of opportunity, pressing needs and international or interagency

commitments that should be met?

 Which projects have the greatest degree of community support?

 Which projects will have the greatest impact on scientific advances across fields taking into

account the importance of balance among fields for NSF's portfolio management in the

nation's interest?
54

Appendix 3 - PROJECT MANAGEMENT COMPONENTS OF A CONSTRUCTION-READY

PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN

Essential components of a construction-ready Project Execution Plan, common to most plans

for construction of large facilities, are listed below, as an example of the extensive nature of the

pre-construction planning that should be conducted prior to expending MREFC funds to execute

the project. Additions or alterations to this list are likely, due to the unique nature of each

specific project. While many of the listed topics cannot be substantively addressed at the

earliest stage of project planning, it is important that project advocates are aware, at the outset,

of the full scope of pre-construction planning activities that should be undertaken and the

consequent pre-resources required. As the project matures through Conceptual Design,

Preliminary and Final design, these topics become correspondingly well defined.

 Description of the research objectives motivating the facility proposal

 Comprehensive statement of the science requirements to be fulfilled by the proposed

facility (to the extent possible identifying minimum essential as well as desirable

quantitative requirements), which provide a basis for determining the scope of the

associated infrastructure requirements;

 Description of the infrastructure necessary to obtain the research objectives

 Work breakdown structure (WBS)

 Work breakdown structure dictionary defining scope of WBS elements

 Project budget, by WBS element

 Description of the basis of estimate for budget components

 Project risk analysis and description analysis methodology

 Contingency budget and description of method for calculating contingency

 Project schedule (and eventually a resource-loaded schedule)

 organizational structure

 Plans and commitments for interagency and international partnerships

 Acquisition plans, sub-awards and subcontracting strategy

 Project technical and financial status reporting, function of the PMCS, and description of

financial and business controls

 Project governance

 Configuration control plans

 Contingency management

 Internal and institutional oversight plans, advisory committees, and plans for building and

maintaining effective relationships with the broader research community that will

eventually utilize the facility to conduct research

 Quality control and quality assurance plans

 Environmental plans, permitting and assessment

 Safety and health issues

 Systems engineering requirements

 Systems integration, testing, acceptance, commissioning and operational readiness

criteria

 Plans for transitioning to operational status

 Estimates of operational cost for the facility
55

Appendix 4 - NSF FACILITY PLAN

The NSF Facility Plan – updated annually and made public – serves as valuable planning tool

within and outside NSF. It also provides a comprehensive exposition of needs and plans to

inform decision-making in the Executive Branch and Congress, and serves as an important

vehicle for communicating with research communities.

The first section of the Plan provides an extensive discussion of the frontier research objectives

and opportunities that provide the context and compelling need for major facilities. The contents

of this section derive from workshops, advisory committees, National Research Council reports,

expertise of visiting and permanent scientific staff, and unsolicited proposals from the

community. The Plan’s second section provides annual updates on the status and progress of

each MREFC project and candidate project. It also maps these projects against the objectives

and opportunities contained in the first section. In particular, this section addresses:

Preliminary Design/Readiness Stage Projects: Projects in various stages of readiness, including

those that will be ready to go to NSB for approval within approximately the next year, and those

that the MREFC panel has recommended for advancement to the Preliminary

Design/Readiness Stage.

NSB Approved Projects: Projects that the NSB has approved for funding in a future budget

request.

Possible New Starts: Facilities for which initial MREFC funding is requested in NSF’s annual

budget request.

Ongoing MREFC Projects: Facilities already in operation or under construction.

In addition to providing regular status reports, the Facility Plan reflects the Administration’s

priorities for new start projects, NSB priorities for NSB-approved projects, and the NSF

Director’s priorities for projects in the Preliminary Design/Readiness Stage. Ongoing MREFC

projects are always given the highest budget priority.

Every year, new science and engineering opportunities arise and new priorities assert

themselves. As a result, no roster or ranking of potential MREFC projects is ever final.

Responsible stewardship of public funds demands that all candidate efforts be evaluated and

reevaluated constantly in the context of the latest, most pressing research goals and the most

profoundly important unanswered questions.

It is the responsibility of the MREFC Panel to develop and maintain the Facility Plan. The plan

is approved by the Director and submitted to the NSB in March.
56

Appendix 5 – SPECIFIC RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR LARGE

FACILITY PROJECTS (DDLFP)

 Prepares monthly progress reports on all ongoing MREFC projects, with regard to both

technical and management matters as they might affect cost and schedule throughout

the life of the project. This should include agendas and minutes of Large Facilities Panel

reviews, as noted below.

 As chair of the Large Facilities Panel, reviews and provides written feedback on all

Internal Management Plans for MREFC projects and on those R&RA projects for which

review is requested by Director, Deputy Director or AD.

 Provides to the Chief Financial officer full transparency and accountability for project

costs and cost projections in accordance with NSF’s internal controls. This includes

certification of each project’s Preliminary Design budget before a project is allowed to

reach the Readiness stage.

 Maintains internal NSF Web site and associated documentation of processes, best

practices, frequently asked questions, case studies, and other guidance for NSF staff on

the oversight of large facilities.

 Develops systems and monitors their use for tracking project progress, work plans,

costs, etc. (e.g., tracking of CDR/PDR action items and responses, tracking of reserves

and contingency funds, WBS).

 Prepares information, presentations, and documentation on Large Facilities for the

Director and Deputy Director for submission to NSB and other purposes.

 Collaborates with Program officers to plan and carry out key project reviews: CDR, PDR,

FDR and other ad hoc project reviews as appropriate, and independently analyzes and

reports on the outcome of these reviews. Visits sites and interacts with awardees, in

coordination with the Program Officer and sponsoring directorate, to strengthen NSF

oversight and develop independent judgment of project status. Provides independent

assessment to NSF CFO that a project’s plans and budget are complete and adequate

to form the basis for a future construction request.

 Provides project management expertise to the Program Officer, and elsewhere in NSF

where appropriate, to strengthen its oversight of large facilities in planning, construction

and operation. Utilizes prior project management experience and that of the DDLFP’s

staff and consultants in these areas to assist NSF.

 Advises the Director and Deputy Director on all options concerning costs and schedules

that may have a bearing on key project decisions.
57

VII. REFERENCES

General Conditions for Grants: www.nsf.gov/pubs/2001/gc101/gc101rev1.pdf

Grant Policy Manual: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=gpm

Grant Proposal Guide: www.nsf.gov/pubs/2003/nsf03041/start.htm

NSF 2007 Facility Plan:

http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf0722&org=NSF

NSF Strategic Plan 2006-2011: http://www.nsf.gov/stratplan

Priority Setting for Large Facility Projects (NSB 04-96), National Science Board White Paper,

May 2004, Attachment 5 to NSB Meeting Report:

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/meetings/2004/may_srprt.doc

Science and Engineering Infrastructure Report for the 21st Century -The Role of the National

Science Foundation, February 8, 2003 (NSB 02-190):

http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2002/nsb02190/nsb02190.pdf

Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science

Foundation, a 2004 National Academies report:http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10895l

Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects Supported by the National Science

Foundation, NSB 05-77: http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2005/nsb0577/index.jsp
58

VIII. List of Acronyms

AD Assistant Director

CCB Change Control Board

CDR Conceptual Design Review

CFO Chief Financial officer

DDLFP Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects

DRB Director’s Review Board

EHR Education and Human Resources

ETC Estimate To Complete

EVMS Earned Value Management System

FDR Final Design Review

FFRDC Federally Funded Research and Development Center

G7 Group of Seven leading individual nations – Canada, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States

G8 Group of Eight leading individual nations – Canada, France, Germany, Italy,

Japan, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Russian Federation

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

IMP Internal Management Plan

IT Information Technology

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

MREFC Major Research Equipment and Facility Construction

NSB National Science Board

NSF National Science Foundation

OMB office of Management and Budget

OSTP office of Science and Technology Policy

PAT Project Advisory Team

PDP Project Development Plan

PDR Preliminary Design Review

PEP Project Execution Plan

PMCS Project Management Control System

PO Program officer

R&D Research and Development

R&RA Research and Related Activities

REU Research Experiences for Undergraduates

RET Research Experiences for Teachers

S&E Science and Engineering

TBSR Total Business System Review

TPC Total Project Cost

WBS Work Breakdown Structure