Office of Inspector General

Audit Report

THE SUCCESS OF FAA’S LONG-TERM PLAN FOR 

AIR TRAFFIC FACILITY REALIGNMENTS AND 

CONSOLIDATIONS DEPENDS ON ADDRESSING 

KEY TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL, AND WORKFORCE 

CHALLENGES

Federal Aviation Administration

Report Number: AV-2012-151

Date Issued: July 17, 2012
U.S. Department of

Memorandum

Transportation

Office of the Secretary

of Transportation

Office of Inspector General

Subject: ACTION: The Success of FAA’s Long-Term Plan 

for Air Traffic Facility Realignments and 

Consolidations Depends on Addressing Key 

Technical, Financial, and Workforce Challenges

Report No. AV-2012-151

Date: July 17, 2012

From: Jeffrey B. Guzzetti

Assistant Inspector General

 for Aviation and Special Program Audits

Reply to 

Attn. of: JA-10

To: Federal Aviation Administrator

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently maintains 561 manned air 

traffic control (ATC) facilities, many of which are outdated and deteriorating. The 

average age for an en-route center is 49 years, while the average age of a terminal 

radar approach control facility (TRACON) is 28 years.

1 This aging infrastructure, 

along with FAA’s work to develop the Next Generation Air Transportation 

System (NextGen),

2

Given that FAA is embarking on NextGen, and that the Agency’s vast network of 

aging facilities has become costly to maintain, the Chairmen of the House 

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and House Subcommittee on 

Aviation requested we review FAA’s current consolidation and realignment plans 

and assess the major cost drivers and technical challenges. Accordingly, we

(1) evaluated FAA’s plans for realigning and consolidating its air traffic facilities, 

and (2) identified the challenges that accompany these efforts.

has prompted the Agency to consider large-scale 

realignments and consolidations of its air traffic facilities. In September 2010, 

FAA established the NextGen Future Facilities Special Program Management 

Office (SPMO) to develop plans for the transformation of FAA’s air traffic 

facilities.

 1 En-route centers guide airplanes flying at high altitudes through large sections of airspace, while TRACONs guide 

aircraft as they approach or leave airspace within 40 miles of an airport. 2 NextGen involves a significant overhaul of the National Airspace System (NAS) from a ground-based to a satellitebased air traffic management system.
2

We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted Government 

auditing standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the United States. 

Exhibit A details our scope and methodology. Exhibit B lists the entities we 

visited or contacted.

RESULTS IN BRIEF

FAA recently approved an initial plan to consolidate en-route centers and 

TRACONs into large, integrated facilities over the next two decades. This is a 

considerable step since our 2008 review when the Agency’s focus was on the 

short-term and primarily on sustaining the existing air traffic control system.3

 

FAA’s current long-term plan would divide the National Airspace System (NAS)

into six segments and realign and consolidate facilities based on operations, 

airspace responsibility, and geographic location. The plan would start with 

consolidating 49 facilities in the Northeast, at an estimated cost of $2.3 billion, 

beginning with a new integrated facility for managing airspace in the New 

York/New Jersey/Philadelphia metropolitan areas. In November 2011, FAA’s 

Joint Resources Council (JRC)4

Although FAA’s plans for large-scale realignments and consolidations are still 

evolving, the Agency must address key technical, financial, and workforce 

challenges to successfully implement the plan. First, FAA will need to align 

ongoing construction projects with the current plan since some projects overlap 

with the recently-approved consolidation plans, creating the potential for 

duplication of effort and waste of funds. Second, FAA will have to make key 

technical decisions related to areas such as airspace boundaries and automation 

platforms, which will have a significant impact on the costs and schedules of 

modernization programs. This will require coordination among FAA’s various 

modernization programs, including NextGen, which FAA has begun but not yet 

completed. Third, FAA will need to finalize cost estimates for individual 

approved these initial plans, and authorized the

former SPMO to proceed with a final analysis for building the first facility. Yet, 

before construction can begin on the first facility, FAA must make several key 

operational and logistical decisions, including where to build the facility. Until 

FAA makes these decisions, construction of the first facility could be delayed and

could have a cascading effect on FAA’s schedule for consolidating other locations.

Also, FAA has not developed metrics to measure the effectiveness of these

activities, which will be important to determine whether expected cost and 

productivity benefits are achieved and to adjust future plans accordingly.

 3 OIG Report No. AV-2009-012, “FAA’s Management and Maintenance of Air Traffic Control Facilities,” December 

15, 2008. OIG correspondence and reports are available on our Web site at http://www.oig.dot.gov/. 4 The JRC is an FAA executive governance board responsible for the approval and oversight of major systems 

acquisitions. These acquisition and investment review processes are intended to ensure that capital investments fulfill 

mission priorities and that investment decisions mitigate risks, make the bust use of resources, and minimize 

duplication of investment efforts. 
3

integrated facility projects, given that the initial business case only provided 

preliminary cost data. Finally, FAA will have to address the wide-ranging impacts 

that facility consolidations will have on its workforce and affected communities.

While FAA is aware of these challenges, it is incumbent upon the Agency to 

mitigate them to the extent possible as its plans for large-scale consolidations

evolve. As past consolidations have shown, not addressing these challenges poses 

risks to achieving expected benefits.

We are making recommendations to FAA to better assist the Agency in achieving 

a successful facility consolidation plan.

BACKGROUND

FAA operates thousands of manned and unmanned facilities that comprise the 

Nation’s ATC system, including 21 en-route centers and 540 TRACONs and air 

traffic control towers. Many of these facilities are old, have outlived their useful 

life, and cannot take advantage of new technologies. In 2008, we reported that 

while the average air traffic facility has an expected useful life of approximately 

25 to 30 years, 59 percent of FAA facilities were over 30 years old. During that

audit we observed obvious structural deficiencies and maintenance-related issues, 

including water leaks, mold, tower cab window condensation, deterioration due to 

poor design, and general disrepair. At that time, FAA had developed processes 

focusing only sustaining the existing air traffic control system and had not made 

key decisions regarding facility consolidations and NextGen infrastructure needs.

In 2010, FAA conducted an infrastructure analysis that found 83 percent of its 

facilities were in either poor or fair condition, and that the infrastructure at some 

facilities would not be able to support NextGen and other modernization 

initiatives. For example, the New York TRACON, a facility that was built in 1978, 

has a control room floor that does not have removable panels to accommodate 

wiring for automation systems and other air traffic equipment, limiting FAA’s 

ability to install new equipment or expand its operations at that facility.

On September 1, 2010, the FAA Administrator took an important step towards 

replacing this aging infrastructure by establishing the NextGen Future Facilities 

SPMO.5

 5 FAA National Policy Order 1110.154, “Establishment of Federal Aviation Administration Next Generation Facilities 

Special Program Management Office,” September 1, 2010.

The SPMO was established to plan large-scale facility realignments and 

consolidations, develop requirements for the facilities, conduct relevant analyses, 

and coordinate these efforts with the Agency’s other modernization programs. In 

May 2012, FAA integrated the SPMO into the Air Traffic Organization (ATO)

and reestablished it as the Future Facilities Group. According to FAA, this 

organizational realignment is expected to focus the Agency’s efforts and 

consolidate management of all air traffic facility modernization, sustainment, 
4 

replacement, and transformation efforts under the leadership of a single 

organization.

Our past work has also shown that FAA can make improvements when justifying 

consolidations. In June 2010, we found that while FAA had a process to evaluate 

the estimated costs and savings for moving the Boise TRACON functions to the 

Salt Lake City TRACON, the business case supporting the move was flawed, 

lacked transparency, and did not reflect changes in key assumptions or include upto-date facility-level information.6

FAA HAS INITIAL PLANS FOR LARGE-SCALE REALIGNMENTS 

AND CONSOLIDATIONS, BUT KEY DECISIONS REMAIN AND 

METRICS HAVE NOT BEEN DEVELOPED

FAA officials later cancelled the planned 

transfer of staff and service from Boise to Salt Lake City.

FAA has developed an initial plan to realign and consolidate en-route centers and 

TRACONs into large, integrated facilities over the next two decades, beginning 

with consolidating facilities managing the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia 

airspace. While the JRC approved these initial plans last November, key decisions, 

such as where to build the first integrated facility, have yet to be made, and could 

impact future consolidation plans. Moreover, though FAA is still in the early 

stages of planning, the Agency has not developed metrics to measure whether 

expected cost and productivity benefits from large-scale realignments and 

consolidations are achieved. Considering that FAA’s large-scale plans span a 

period of 20 years in 6 segments, measuring the success of early realignments and 

consolidations will be critical so that FAA can determine whether it is achieving 

its goals and whether the Agency needs to modify plans and expectations for 

future efforts. 

FAA Has Initial Approval for Integrating Facilities in the Northeast

FAA has recently approved an initial plan to realign and consolidate en-route 

centers and TRACONs into large, integrated facilities over the next two decades. 

This long-term plan represents considerable progress since our 2008 review, when 

the Agency’s focus was primarily on the short-term and on sustaining the existing 

infrastructure. This consolidation and realignment plan would divide the NAS into 

six geographic segments within the continuous United States (see figure 1). 

 

6

 OIG Correspondence No. CC-2009-099, “Letter to the Idaho Congressional Delegation Regarding the Review of 

FAA’s Business Case for Moving Terminal Radar Approach Control Services from Boise, Idaho to Salt Lake City, 

Utah,” June 30, 2010. 
5 

Figure 1. Large-Scale TRACON Consolidations 

1

2

5 4

6 

3

 Segment 1: Chicago through 

New England, New York, 

Philadelphia 

Segment 2: Baltimore and 

Washington, DC to Atlanta 

and St. Louis 

Segment 3: West Coast from 

California and Oregon to the 

Arizona Border 

Segment 4: Southern Atlantic 

Region - Eastern Carolinas, 

Georgia and Florida 

Segment 5: Gulf Coast 

Including Louisiana and 

Texas, Extending Through 

Arkansas 

Segment 6: Midwest and 

Rocky Mountains Extending 

through Washington State 

Source: FAA 

Within each segment, TRACONs and en-route centers would be combined into 

two types of facilities—each of which could house over 1,200 employees—based 

on operational requirements, airspace responsibility, and geographic location. The 

two types of facilities are: 

 Integrated Control Facilities—provide expanded terminal airspace 

functions by combining TRACON operations with some en-route center 

operations; and 

 High Altitude Control Facilities (“High Ops”)—control high-altitude 

airspace currently monitored by en-route centers, with some facilities 

monitoring oceanic traffic. 

Under the current plan, work on a new F

segment would begin every other year, with 

four to five facilities per segment, and all 

segments would be completed by 2034. 

FAA believes that these integrated facilities 

will maximize operations and realize the 

benefits of airspace redesigns, eliminate 

artificial airspace boundaries caused by the 

current air traffic facility network, and 

improve internal operations. The Agency 

also believes that the new buildings will 

reduce the number of facilities requiring 

new equipment or upgrades, avoid the cost Source: FAA 

of maintaining aging facilities, and facilitate NextGen capabilities. (See figure 2 

for an artist’s rendition of an integrated facility.)

igure 2. Artist Rendition of an 

Integrated Facility
6

On November 16, 2011, the JRC approved initial plans to move ahead with plans 

to realign and consolidate facilities in the Northeast. This segment will consolidate 

45 TRACONs and 4 en-route centers stretching from Chicago to New England, 

New York, and Philadelphia into 4 integrated facilities (see table 1). The plan, 

with an estimated life-cycle cost of $2.3 billion,7

Table 1. Proposed Northeast Integrated Facilities*

calls for the four integrated 

facilities to be built with operations transferred from the individual TRACONs by 

2023.

Proposed Integrated 

Facility Current Facilities and Airspace To Be Transferred

Liberty Integrated 

Control Facility

• TRACONs within the New York Center’s airspace, including the 

New York and Philadelphia TRACONs

• Airspace at or below 30,000 feet from the New York Center

Lincoln Integrated 

Control Facility

• TRACONs within the Chicago Center’s airspace, including the 

Chicago and Milwaukee TRACONs

• Airspace at or below 30,000 feet from the Chicago Center

Northeast Integrated 

Control and High 

Ops Facility

• TRACONs within the Boston Center’s airspace

• Airspace at or below 30,000 feet from the Boston Center. 

• The facility will be co-located with operations from the New York 

and Boston Centers that control airspace at or above 31,000 feet, 

along with oceanic operations.

Great Lakes 

Integrated Control 

and High Ops Facility

• TRACONs within the Cleveland Center’s airspace, including the 

Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Detroit TRACONs

• Airspace at or below 30,000 feet from the Cleveland Center. 

• The facility will be co-located with operations from the Chicago and 

Cleveland Centers that control airspace at or above 31,000 feet.

∗ The names of the facilities are notional, and do not indicate where FAA plans to build these facilities. 

See Exhibit C for a list of TRACONs and en-route centers that could potentially be transferred to each of 

the four integrated facilities. Source: FAA

As part of the initial approval of the overall plan, the JRC also approved plans to

move forward with a final investment analysis for the Liberty facility, which 

includes airspace over the New York, New Jersey, and Philadelphia metropolitan 

areas. Some FAA and union personnel expressed concerns with starting this effort 

in the New York area, citing the complexity of the airspace and the impact to the 

NAS if problems arise. FAA officials acknowledge this risk, but stated that the 

current New York facilities are in need of extensive maintenance repairs and have 

limited room for expansion. They also stated that resolving airspace issues around 

New York and in the Northeast has the greatest potential return in operational 

efficiencies for the NAS, and that starting in New York will better facilitate FAA’s 

 7 This estimate is adjusted for inflation, is calculated over a 40-year life-cycle, and includes costs associated with the 

planning, construction, and equipage of the facilities. It does not include airspace redesign implementation, moving 

personnel via a permanent change of station (PCS), program management, and other indirect costs.
7

implementation of the ongoing New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia airspace 

redesign.

Key Decisions Regarding the First Site Have Been Delayed, and the 

Agency Has Not Developed Metrics To Measure the Success of Its 

First Facility

Key decisions remain before construction of the Liberty Integrated Control 

Facility can begin. First, FAA has not yet selected a site for the project, and is still 

examining potential sites for the facility. Recently, FAA postponed its decision to 

approve construction for the first facility from November 2012 to May 2013. This 

is primarily due to delays in selecting a site for the facility and tight funding limits 

called for in its recently passed reauthorization. FAA officials noted that the delay 

will affect FAA’s schedule for consolidating other locations within the first 

segment, though the impact has not yet been determined.

FAA’s decision will involve determining complex operational, logistical, and 

workforce aspects of the consolidation, including the following:

• the facility’s airspace boundaries and total operating positions 

• the size of the building 

• the total number of controllers, technicians, and other employees working 

at the facility 

• the automation and other equipment to be installed

• transition schedules for existing facilities to move to the new building

• workforce issues, including any incentives that may be offered to facilitate 

the move

FAA officials stated that plans for future projects could change based on 

experiences with the initial locations. These adjustments may include changing the 

number and size of integrated facilities built, or constructing two buildings on one 

site to account for differences in operations.

Also, FAA has not developed metrics that measure whether expected operational 

efficiencies and potential cost savings from future facility realignment and 

consolidation efforts are actually achieved. Considering that FAA’s large-scale 

plans span a period of 20 years in 6 segments, measuring the success of early 

realignments and consolidations will be critical so that FAA can determine 

whether it is achieving its goals, and if it needs to modify plans and expectations 

for future efforts. 
8

FAA FACES KEY TECHNICAL, FINANCIAL, AND WORKFORCE 

CHALLENGES THAT WILL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED TO 

SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENT THE PLAN

Successfully implementing FAA’s plans for large-scale realignments and 

consolidations—and avoiding future risks—will require the Agency to address a 

number of technical, financial, and workforce challenges. First, FAA will have to 

align current construction projects with the large-scale plan since some projects 

overlap with the recently-approved large-scale realignment and consolidation 

plans, creating the potential for duplication of effort and waste of funds. Also, 

FAA will have to make key decisions related to automation platforms, airspace 

redesign, and other technical factors associated with realignments and 

consolidations, finalize cost estimates for the projects, and address associated 

workforce and community issues.

FAA Will Need To Align Existing Construction Projects With New 

Realignment and Consolidation Plans To Prevent Duplication 

While FAA continues to develop plans for large-scale consolidations, the Agency 

has essentially halted its other realignment and consolidation activities except for 

one small TRACON consolidation.8 FAA does not plan to realign or consolidate 

any additional terminal facilities. It has cancelled plans for consolidating the West 

Palm Beach TRACON functions into the Miami TRACON and has deferred 

previously-approved TRACON consolidations in Michigan, Ohio, and Illinois 

until further decisions are made.9

Although further consolidations are on hold, FAA is moving ahead with plans to 

maintain or replace its aging facilities. However, FAA has not yet aligned these 

construction projects with its large-scale consolidation effort. The ATO’s 

Terminal Planning branch

In addition, FAA has no plans to consolidate any 

of its en-route centers, but will focus on sustaining these facilities while it analyzes 

future consolidations.

10

 8 The Abilene, TX, TRACON functions will be transferred to the Dallas/Ft. Worth TRACON as early as this October, 

but more likely sometime next year.

maintains a Facility Master Plan that ranks the 

condition and needs of over 500 TRACONs and air traffic control towers. Based 

on this list, along with Congressionally-directed earmarks, two new TRACONs, in 

Cleveland, OH, and Kalamazoo, MI, were approved for construction prior to the 

approval of SPMO’s plan. These new facilities overlap with the plan for the 

Lincoln and Great Lakes integrated facilities, and may no longer be needed if FAA 

decides to consolidate those TRACONs’ functions into larger, integrated facilities. 

9 The planned consolidations included combining the Cleveland, Youngstown, Mansfield, Toledo, Akron, and Toledo, 

OH, TRACON functions to a new TRACON in Cleveland; combining the Muskegon, Lansing, Grand Rapids, and 

Kalamazoo, MI, TRACON functions into a new TRACON in Kalamazoo; and transferring the Champaign, IL 

TRACON functions to the Chicago TRACON. 10 In May 2012 both the Terminal and En-Route Planning branches were transferred to the ATO’s Technical Services 

branch.
9

FAA officials are aware of the potential overlap, and to better synchronize these 

efforts, expects to make a decision on whether to consolidate the two TRACONs 

into integrated facilities at a later date.

FAA Will Need To Make Key Technical Decisions Regarding

Integrated Facilities That Impact Future Modernization Plans

Realigning and consolidating facilities is a complex, multi-faceted undertaking, 

and requires decisions such as what automation and other equipment will be 

installed, how airspace boundaries will change when facilities are consolidated, 

and when air traffic operations will be transferred to the new facility. FAA’s initial 

plans include preliminary decisions and generic information regarding these 

technical requirements for the first four planned integrated facilities. For example, 

the initial plans propose using En Route Automation Modernization (ERAM) and 

Terminal Automation Modernization Replacement (TAMR) as automation 

systems, and would consolidate operations from incoming TRACONs into the first 

integrated facility over a 6-year period. However, these technical decisions will

not be finalized for the first facility until next spring, and FAA officials noted that 

technical aspects for future sites could change based on their experiences with the 

first integrated facility.

These decisions will also have wide-ranging impacts on the Agency’s future 

modernization plans and budgets, including NextGen. FAA’s modernization plans 

were based on the current facility set-up of en-route centers and TRACONs. 

Depending on what is decided, the integrated facility plan will require cost and 

schedule changes to other modernization programs that already have established 

baselines. As shown in the table below, this will include automation efforts such 

as ERAM and TAMR,11

 11 According to FAA officials, they have no plans to build a common automation platform for integrated facilities.

en-route and terminal voice switch programs, and the 

Federal Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI) program. However, the full 

extent of the changes will not be known until FAA solidifies its plans for 

integrated facilities.
10

Table 2. Key Modernization Programs Impacted by Large-Scale 

Consolidations

Program Description

ERAM

FAA has been developing the $2.1 billion ERAM program to replace and 

significantly enhance the existing hardware and software at the 20 FAA Centers 

that manage high-altitude air traffic. ERAM is FAA’s key platform for NextGen to 

process flight data across the NAS.

TAMR

The TAMR program is expected to modernize or replace the terminal 

automation systems (displays and processors) controllers rely on to manage 

takeoffs and landings at 158 operational sites. FAA plans to spend over $1 

billion on modernizing and sustaining terminal automation systems from 2012 to 

2018.

NAS Voice 

System (NVS)

FAA is planning to develop a new voice switch to control data and voice 

communications paths that support both terminal and en-route operations, 

along with new NextGen activities (i.e., Unmanned Aircraft Systems). FAA is 

planning to spend approximately $120 million from 2012 to 2016 on NVS 

development, and finalize cost, schedule, and performance parameters for NVS 

by August 2012.

FTI FTI is a $2.4 billion system through which FAA will route data and information

for all of the NextGen programs and FAA initiatives. Without FTI, NVS will be 

unable to complete its mission as a networked backup voice communications 

system.

Source: OIG, based on FAA data

These decisions will require coordination among FAA’s various modernization 

programs from a technical, cost, and schedule standpoint. FAA has begun

coordinating these efforts, and is working to identify the requirements and 

interdependencies needed for the first four facilities. This includes coordinating 

with program offices responsible for airspace and procedure changes, automation 

platforms, traffic flow management, communications, and surveillance, and 

developing “Portfolio Level Agreements” (PfLAs) that define the roles, 

responsibilities, and critical interdependencies that are needed to support the 

transition to integrated facilities. However, these agreements are not expected to 

be completed until the final investment decision for the first facility has been made 

next year.

FAA Will Need To Finalize Cost Estimates and Funding Sources To 

Construct the Four Integrated Facilities

FAA will also have to finalize the estimated costs for constructing, staffing, and 

maintaining the first four planned integrated facilities, and will have to determine 

how to finance construction of these projects. Gathering and quantifying this 

information is critical to provide decision makers with accurate cost information 

regarding integrated facilities. FAA’s Acquisition Management System (AMS) 

requires the Agency to complete a business case analysis outlining alternatives, 

estimated costs, and projected efficiencies for large acquisitions. As shown in the 
11

table below, the initial business case estimated that FAA will spend $1.8 billion 

from FY 2011 through FY 2017, and a total of $5.3 billion over a 40-year 

timeframe, to construct and maintain the four planned facilities (see table 3). This 

estimate includes costs for constructing the buildings and equipment acquisition; 

airspace redesign implementation, facility modernization and sustainment, 

equipment refresh, and other indirect costs; movement of personnel via permanent 

change of station (PCS) costs; and the personnel salary and benefit (PC&B) costs 

for Agency staff tasked with overseeing the four projects.

Table 3. Initial Cost Estimates for Planned Northeast Facilities

($ in Millions)12

Type of Costs FY11–FY17 FY18–Beyond Total

Facility Construction and Equipment Costs $1,556.9 $751.2 $2,308.1

Airspace Redesign, Modernization, 

Sustainment, and Other Indirect Costs $160.2 $2,424.2 $2,584.4

PCS Costs $35.8 $303.4 $339.1

Program PC&B Costs $29.8 $42.1 $71.9

Total $1,782.7 $3,520.8 $5,303.5

Source: OIG, based on FAA data. Figures may not add up due to rounding.

However, the initial business case only provides preliminary cost estimates, and a 

more detailed cost and benefit analysis for the first integrated facility will be 

completed prior to the investment decision scheduled for May 2013. Also, the 

business cases for the other three integrated facilities will be refined as decisions 

regarding the final size and configuration of those facilities are made. In addition, 

the initial business case does not include key assumptions that will be needed to

fully estimate the projected costs of integrated facilities. For example, the initial 

business case is site neutral, and does not consider the cost differences of different 

metropolitan areas when calculating projected costs. The initial business case also 

assumes that the number of employees will remain the same and that there will not 

be a labor cost savings, and it does not fully quantify future productivity and 

efficiency enhancements. FAA officials stated that once decisions regarding 

individual facility locations are made, this information will be included in future 

analyses. However, these officials also stated that future business cases will 

continue to assume no reductions in facility staff, and that decisions regarding 

future staffing levels will be made based on operations.

 12 This estimate is adjusted for inflation.
12

FAA has made improvements to weaknesses we identified with previous business 

case analyses. During our review of the Boise TRACON consolidation, we found 

that the business case supporting the move was flawed, lacked transparency, and 

did not reflect changes in key assumptions or include up-to-date facility-level 

information. In response to our concerns, FAA and the National Air Traffic 

Controllers Association (NATCA) developed a supplemental questionnaire that 

captured facility-level information regarding potential consolidations. The 

questionnaire, which was provided to facility management and union 

representatives, included questions regarding the current state of buildings and 

equipment, potential risks due to natural disasters, backup systems, 

telecommunication, and redundancy. Additional questions included housing 

market, commuting, education and employment, and local and national political 

concerns regarding realignment. However, this information was not verified by 

FAA Headquarters officials.

Another challenge is determining how to pay for the projects. While FAA

estimated that $2.3 billion is needed to construct and equip the four integrated 

facilities, last year’s Capital Investment Plan (CIP) only provides about $700 

million for the projects. In order to complete the projects, another $1.6 billion in 

funding is needed, with nearly $1 billion of that by FY 2017 (see table 4).

13

Table 4. Funding Estimates for Constructing Northeast Integrated Facilities 

($ in Millions, adjusted for inflation)

FAA

is considering alternative financing sources and other acquisition strategies to pay 

for the projects. This includes partnerships with local and other Government 

agencies, public-private partnerships, and using the proposed Federal 

infrastructure bank. However, no decisions have been made regarding these

financing options.

FY11–FY17 FY18–Beyond Total

Projected Facility Construction and 

Equipage Costs $1,556.9 $751.2 $2,308.1

Previous CIP Funding Levels $557.7 $144.1 $701.8

Difference $999.2 $607.1 $1,606.3

Source: FAA

 13 In its FY 2013 budget request, FAA is requesting $225 million for FY 2012 and $95 million for FY 2013 to plan and 

build the Liberty Integrated Control Facility.
13

FAA Will Need To Address the Impact of Large-Scale Realignments 

and Consolidations on Its Workforce, Requiring Collective Bargaining 

With Unions 

The success of FAA’s plans also depends on addressing significant workforce 

issues. Large-scale realignments and consolidations will require the movement of 

thousands of employees and their families, and will impact communities gaining 

or losing these facilities. FAA is working closely with its bargaining units to gain 

consensus regarding these issues. 

While NATCA leadership at the national level has stated that it supports the 

integrated facility concept, there may be opposition from local facilities. For 

example, during our visits to the New York Center and New York TRACON, 

FAA and union officials indicated that they would oppose plans to build an 

integrated facility outside of Long Island. They stated that many employees are 

connected to the area as life residents, have spouses who work in the area, and 

would be unlikely to move from the area. In addition, FAA management from the 

New York TRACON estimates that approximately 30 percent of its controller 

workforce is eligible to retire, and if forced to move to a facility outside of Long 

Island, many may opt to retire instead.

Realignments and consolidations also represent a change in working conditions, 

and will require collective bargaining with unions, most notably with NATCA. A 

myriad of potentially contentious issues will be subject to negotiation, such as pay, 

employee bidding, relocation bonuses, training, and moving expenses. For 

example, last June the Dayton TRACON’s operations realigned to the Columbus 

TRACON, requiring a large number of Dayton controllers to transfer in order to 

meet the operational needs of the Columbus TRACON and to prevent overstaffing 

of the Dayton Tower. It also required Columbus controllers to certify on Dayton’s 

TRACON positions. To accomplish this, in January 2011, FAA and NATCA 

signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that provided a total of nearly 

half a million dollars in incentives for 27 controllers to transfer to other facilities, 

along with reimbursements for temporary duty travel and moving expenses. 

For upcoming consolidations and realignments, FAA will face challenges in 

ensuring that future agreements are cost-effective and do not present opportunities 

for waste or abuse. For example, a March 2001 pay rule negotiated with NATCA 

provided controllers transferring to the Atlanta Consolidated TRACON with half 

of their pay increase when they were selected to transfer and the other half when 

they actually transferred to the facility. However, the consolidated facility saw a 

94 percent training failure rate from controllers transferring from smaller facilities. 

These controllers could not handle the complexity of the traffic or the additional 

workload, but due to the negotiated pay rule, they received a significant pay 
14

increase just for transferring to the facility. They ultimately transferred to lower 

level facilities, but the rule allowed them to maintain their higher salaries.

FAA Will Need To Address the Economic and Infrastructure Impacts 

on Local Communities

Realigning and consolidating air traffic facilities will likely have significant 

economic, infrastructure, and lifestyle impacts on local communities gaining and 

losing facilities, as it involves moving potentially hundreds of employees across 

State lines. To illustrate this point, a 2009 Department of Defense contracted study 

examined the impacts the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Commission 

activities had on local communities in Maryland.14

These impacts may result in challenges or potential roadblocks to FAA’s 

consolidation and realignment efforts that will need to be addressed. As FAA is 

aware with past consolidations, communities losing their facilities have taken 

steps to delay or prevent the moves, often based on information obtained from 

impacted employees and local officials. For example, during the Palm Springs to 

Southern California TRACON consolidation in 2007, local communities 

expressed concerns with the ability of the Southern California TRACON to absorb 

an additional 220,000 air traffic operations, including controlling aircraft in 

mountainous terrain and complex airspace. These communities also expressed 

concerns regarding the adequacy of staffing levels at the facility to accommodate 

the additional workload. As a result, the consolidation was delayed by 1 month as 

local representatives raised these issues with FAA. Similarly, local communities 

expressed concerns about the planned consolidation between West Palm Beach 

TRACON and a new facility in Miami, FL. Specifically, the community was 

concerned that combining the facilities might limit the ability to bring in relief 

supplies to south Florida, an area that is vulnerable to hurricanes. After further 

internal evaluation, FAA decided against combining the facility with Miami.

The study found that the 

changes, which led to the relocation of thousands of jobs to the State, had a 

significant impact on local services and infrastructure, such as increased demands 

on local hospitals, police and fire services, and schools. The study also called for

the development of a plan to identify funding sources for school improvements, as 

well as developing a plan to address transportation concerns such as increased 

traffic on local and State highways.

Past Consolidations Underscore the Risk Posed By Not Addressing 

Key Technical, Financial, and Workforce Challenges 

Addressing the technical, financial, and workforce challenges we have outlined 

will be critical to the success of FAA’s overall efforts. The importance of 

 14 “APG Regional Workforce Analysis: Chesapeake Security & Security Corridor,” New Economies Strategies and 

AKRF, Final Report, December 2009.
15

addressing these challenges is underscored by the fact that previous large-scale 

TRACON consolidations did not realize the financial and operational benefits 

FAA expected. 

Consolidating air traffic facilities and operations is not new for FAA, and has been 

the Agency’s policy for decades. FAA’s last major consolidation efforts occurred 

in the 1990s, when the Agency built a series of consolidated TRACONs in major 

metropolitan areas to consolidate and improve air traffic operations (see table 5). 

Recently, FAA has focused on single TRACON consolidations where the 

operations of a smaller TRACON were transferred to a larger TRACON. The most 

recent small consolidation occurred last June, when the operations of the Dayton, 

OH, TRACON were transferred to Columbus, OH.

Table 5. Previous Large-Scale TRACON Consolidations

Facility Date Facility 

Commissioned TRACONs Transferred

Southern California TRACON 1995 Los Angeles, Coast, Burbank, 

Ontario, San Diego, and Palm Springs

Peachtree TRACON (Atlanta) 2001 Atlanta, Macon, and Columbus

Potomac TRACON

(Baltimore-Washington DC)

2002 Dulles, National, BaltimoreWashington International, Richmond, 

and Andrews AFB

Northern California TRACON 2002 Bay Area, Monterey, Stockton, 

Sacramento, and Reno

Boston TRACON 2004 Boston and Manchester

Source: FAA

In 2004, FAA completed a study that compared the projected costs, schedules, and 

operational efficiencies of the Atlanta, Northern California, and Potomac 

Consolidated TRACONs against the actual results.15

 15 “Evaluation of Large Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities Consolidation Benefits;” Report No. 2003-23; 

Original Report Date December 31, 2003; Revised April 2004.

The study, along with our 

interviews with facility personnel, showed that (1) the costs of these 

consolidations were higher than originally estimated, (2) facilities were delayed in 

opening, and (3) operational efficiencies were not achieved (see table 6).
16

Table 6. Cost Increases, Schedule Delays, and Other Impacts of Past LargeScale Consolidation Efforts

Consolidated 

Facility

Cost Increases Schedule 

Delays

Other Impacts

Atlanta 

Consolidated 

TRACON

Operations and 

maintenance costs 

were 53 percent 

higher than 

estimated, mostly 

due to negotiated 

controller pay 

increases.

9 months due to

the unavailability 

of the Standard 

Terminal 

Automation 

Replacement 

System (STARS)

Operational efficiencies were not 

achieved due to controllers transferred 

from smaller facilities being unable to 

certify at the facility, and because of a 

decision to change the configuration of 

a proposed runway at Atlanta Hartsfield 

Airport, delayed the runway’s 

completion and invalidating user benefit 

assumptions made during the original 

cost-benefit analysis.

Northern 

California 

Consolidated 

TRACON

Construction costs 

were 45 percent 

higher than originally 

estimated. ATC 

staffing costs were 

28 percent higher 

due to controller pay 

increases.

22 months due to 

the unavailability 

of STARS and 

two budget cuts 

during 

construction of 

the project. 

Due to the delay in opening the 

TRACON, controllers received their 

negotiated pay increase well before 

actually transferring to the new site, and

caused FAA to incur close to $400,000 

in reverse commute costs for six 

controllers who transferred to the new 

TRACON early and had to commute 

back to their old facility to work.

Potomac 

TRACON

(BaltimoreWashington 

DC)

Construction and 

equipage costs were 

46 percent higher 

than estimated, due 

to the subsequent 

inclusion of the 

Richmond TRACON 

into the new facility 

and a change in 

automation systems. 

Staffing costs were 

24 percent above 

budget. 

7 months due to 

the inclusion of 

the Richmond 

TRACON, 

requiring an 

increase to the 

size of the 

building, and the 

unavailability of 

STARS.

While the consolidation resulted in 

improved operational coordination 

within the facility, it did not result in 

extensive airspace redesign, staff 

reductions, or equalizing of work 

between operating sectors. Facility 

management noted a loss of about 25 

percent of the originally anticipated user 

benefits. The consolidation also 

resulted in controllers monitoring the 

Richmond-area airspace, a slower and 

less complex sector, earning the same 

pay as controllers monitoring busier, 

more complex airspace.

Source: OIG, based on FAA data

As FAA’s prior efforts have shown, FAA’s consolidation efforts are at risk of not 

producing the desired outcomes. This is in part because, in the past, FAA fell 

victim to many of the same workforce, technical, and other challenges we 

emphasized above. With FAA’s new large-scale consolidation plans, FAA has a 

unique opportunity to proactively prevent some of the problems that it experienced 

in the past by addressing some of its biggest challenges early on in the planning 

process. 
17

CONCLUSION

FAA’s efforts to modernize the NAS are critical for meeting the anticipated 

demand for air travel. The extent to which FAA realigns and consolidates the 

Nation’s air traffic control facilities will be an important—and complex—

component of these efforts. FAA’s plans for large-scale integrated facilities 

represent significant steps on the path to achieving greater operational efficiencies. 

However, successfully implementing this plan will require the Agency to address 

significant challenges and make difficult decisions regarding the cost, schedule, 

and technical capabilities required for the effort. As FAA’s plan evolves, 

addressing these issues early, including learning from the experiences of prior 

consolidation efforts, will better position the Agency to achieve airspace and 

operational efficiencies, potential cost savings, or more importantly, the benefits 

from NextGen. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

To assist FAA in achieving a successful facility consolidation plan, we 

recommend that FAA: 

1. Develop a process to regularly update stakeholders regarding decisions

associated with large-scale facility realignments and consolidations, including 

decisions regarding where the first facility will be built.

2. Develop metrics that quantify the expected operational and cost efficiencies 

from future realignments and consolidations. At a minimum, these metrics 

should provide baseline data that can be used to measure whether these 

efficiencies are being achieved, and allow the Agency to adjust future plans 

and expected efficiencies in a timely manner as it moves forward with future 

realignments and consolidations.

3. Complete internal agreements between the Future Facilities Group, NextGen, 

and other ATO organizations to coordinate its large-scale realignments and 

consolidations efforts with other NextGen and modernization programs. 

4. Develop comprehensive and regularly updated cost estimates that include, at a 

minimum, estimates for construction, equipment, increased salaries, relocation 

expenses, and training.

5. Further assess the cost, technical, operational, and workforce risks associated 

with individual realignments and consolidations, and develop risk mitigation 

plans for them.
18

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

RESPONSE 

We provided FAA with our draft report on May 10, 2012, and received its formal 

response on June 15, 2012. FAA’s response is included in its entirety as an 

appendix to this report. FAA concurred with all five of our recommendations and 

proposed appropriate action plans. Based on FAA’s response, we believe the 

Agency met the intent of all five recommendations, which will remain open 

pending completion of the planned actions. However, we are requesting that FAA 

provide target completion dates for recommendations 4 and 5.

For recommendation 4, FAA stated that it has developed lifecycle program cost 

estimates, and is also refining the data to develop more accurate construction and 

equipment, personnel, and training costs. However, continued revision and 

refinement of cost estimates are critical for a long-term effort of this magnitude, 

especially given that the final investment decision for the first Integrated Control 

Facility is scheduled for May 2013. Therefore, we are requesting that the Agency 

provide specific target action dates for how often and when the cost information is 

expected to be updated.

For recommendation 5, FAA’s proposed actions meet the intent of our 

recommendation. However, as our report states, the Agency’s consolidation efforts 

are at risk of not producing desired outcomes, and addressing challenges early in 

the planning process—to mitigate risk—will position FAA to better manage the 

effort and realize the expected benefits. Therefore, to allow us to measure FAA’s

progress, we request that FAA provide our office with target completion dates for 

any future risk assessments of its efforts. 

Additionally, since we issued our draft report, FAA has restructured its large scale 

consolidation planning and oversight office, which is cited in the Agency’s 

response. We met with the Air Traffic Organization’s Director of Technical 

Operations, Air Traffic Control Facilities, and the Director of Terminal Planning, 

who explained the purpose and intent of the reorganization. Accordingly, we have 

modified our final report to reflect the organizational changes where applicable.

ACTIONS REQUIRED

FAA’s planned actions for all five recommendations are responsive, and its target 

action dates for recommendations 1, 2, and 3 are appropriate. However, in 

accordance with DOT Order 8001.C, we request that FAA provide our office, 

within 30 days of this report, with target action dates for recommendations 4 and 

5. All five recommendations will remain open pending receipt of documentary 

evidence that appropriate corrective actions are complete. 
19

We appreciate the courtesies and cooperation of FAA representatives during this 

audit. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 

366-1427, or Barry DeWeese, Program Director, at (415) 744-0420. 

#

cc: Pierre McLeod, AAE-100

Martin Gertel, M-1
20

Exhibit A. Scope and Methodology

EXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

We conducted this performance audit between February 2011 and May 2012 in 

accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards prescribed by 

the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan 

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

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. The following scope and 

methodology were used in conducting this review.

To determine FAA’s plans for realigning and consolidating its air traffic facilities, 

we met with officials from the SPMO and the ATO’s Terminal and En-Route 

Planning groups to determine FAA’s near- and long-term realignment and 

consolidation efforts, as well as the Agency’s continuing efforts to replace and 

modernize its facility infrastructure. We also reviewed the initial business case 

provided to the JRC justifying the initial consolidation plan, supporting 

documentation for the initial business case, as well as SPMO and other FAA 

briefing materials to identify preliminary milestones, projected cost, and the 

Agency’s approach for implementing its large-scale realignment and consolidation 

plans.

To determine the challenges involved with realigning and consolidating air traffic 

facilities, we reviewed draft intra-Agency agreements and technical documents 

supporting the initial business case. We also met with FAA officials to determine 

the technical interdependencies needed for the SPMO’s plan to be successful, and 

its impact on FAA’s other modernization efforts. Also, we reviewed the initial 

business case and its underlying assumptions to determine the completeness of the 

cost and funding estimates for the first segment and the assumptions used in the 

business case, and we discussed these aspects with SPMO officials. In addition, to 

determine the lessons learned from previous realignments and consolidations, we 

interviewed FAA, NATCA, and PASS National officials at the national level and 

at 15 air traffic facilities that had either gone through a previous consolidation or 

are being considered for future realignments and consolidations. We reviewed 

collectively-bargained MOUs, pay rules, and other agreements made with 

NATCA, and an April 2003 ATO report on three previous large TRACON 

consolidations. Finally, we reviewed a December 2009 Department of Defense 

study on the impacts of previous BRAC realignments to illustrate potential 

infrastructure and other community issues that realignments and consolidations 

may have on local communities.
21

Exhibit B. Organizations Visited or Contacted

EXHIBIT B. ORGANIZATIONS VISITED OR CONTACTED 

FAA Headquarters, Washington, DC

• NextGen Future Facilities Special Program Management Office (SPMO)

• Air Traffic Organization, Terminal Services, Terminal Planning

• Air Traffic Organization, Strategy and Performance

• Air Traffic Organization, En-Route Operations

• Air Traffic Organization, NextGen and Operations Planning

FAA Facilities (ATCT, TRACON and ARTCC)

• Potomac Consolidated TRACON

• Reno ATCT

• Northern California Consolidated TRACON

• Palm Springs ATCT

• Southern California Consolidated TRACON

• Dayton ATCT

• Columbus TRACON

• Mansfield ATCT/TRACON

• Canton-Akron ATCT/TRACON

• Cleveland TRACON

• New York TRACON

• New York En-Route Center

• Atlanta Consolidated TRACON

• West Palm Beach ATCT/TRACON

• Miami ATCT/TRACON

Industry Groups

• National Air Traffic Controllers Association (NATCA)

• Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS) National

• Aviation Management Associates
22

Exhibit C. Planned Segment 1 Integrated Facilities

EXHIBIT C. PLANNED SEGMENT 1 INTEGRATED FACILITIES*

Liberty Integrated Control Facility Lincoln Integrated Control Facility

Incoming Facilities: New York TRACON, 

New York En-Route Center (partial), 

Philadelphia TRACON, Allentown TRACON, 

Wilkes-Barre TRACON, Binghamton 

TRACON, Elmira TRACON, Harrisburg 

TRACON, Reading TRACON

Radar Positions: 86

Total ATC Positions: 169

Certified Controllers: 625

Technicians: 156

Management/Other Staff: 57

Total FTEs: 838

Incoming Facilities: Chicago TRACON, 

Chicago En-Route Center (partial), Milwaukee 

TRACON, Kalamazoo TRACON, Fort Wayne 

TRACON, Grand Rapids TRACON, 

Muskegon TRACON, South Bend TRACON, 

Waterloo TRACON, Cedar Rapids TRACON, 

Champaign TRACON, Quad City TRACON, 

Madison TRACON, Peoria TRACON, 

Rockford TRACON

Radar Positions: 99

Total ATC Positions: 174

Certified Controllers: 730

Technicians: 208

Management/Other Staff: 42

Total FTEs: 980

Great Lakes Integrated Control and High 

Ops Facility

Northeast Integrated Control and High Ops 

Facility

Facilities: Detroit TRACON, Cleveland 

TRACON, Cleveland En-Route Center 

(partial), Chicago En-Route Center (partial), 

Flint TRACON, Lansing TRACON, Saginaw 

TRACON, Mansfield TRACON, Toledo 

TRACON, Buffalo TRACON, Akron-Canton 

TRACON, Clarksburg TRACON, Erie 

TRACON, Rochester TRACON, Youngstown 

TRACON, Pittsburgh TRACON

Radar Positions: 123

Total ATC Positions: 241

Certified Controllers: 920

Technicians: 224

Management/Other Staff: 139

Total FTEs: 1,283

Facilities: Boston TRACON, Boston EnRoute Center (partial), New York En-Route 

Center (partial), Albany TRACON, Cape 

TRACON, Yankee TRACON, Bangor 

TRACON, Burlington TRACON, Providence 

TRACON, Portland TRACON, Syracuse 

TRACON

Radar Positions: 88

Total ATC Positions: 201

Certified Controllers: 716

Technicians: 244

Management/Other Staff: 67

Total FTEs: 1,027

∗ The names of the facilities are notional, and do not indicate where FAA plans to build these facilities.
23

Exhibit D. Major Contributors to This Report

EXHIBIT D. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT

Name Title____________________

Barry DeWeese Program Director 

Frank Danielski Project Manager

Craig Owens Senior Analyst

Andrew Sourlis Analyst

Wayne Van De Walker Auditor

Audre Azuolas Writer/Editor
APPENDIX. AGENCY COMMENTS 24

Appendix. Agency Comments

Federal Aviation

Administration

Memorandum

Date: June 15, 2012

To: Jeffrey B. Guzzetti, Director, Assistant Inspector General for Aviation and 

Special Program Audits

From: H. Clayton Foushee, Director, Office of Audit and Evaluation, AAE-1

Subject: FAA Response to OIG Draft report Air Traffic Facility Realignments and 

Consolidations 

Managing an infrastructure as vast and complex as the Nation’s air traffic control system 

requires constant focus on technology, methodology and physical facilities. FAA 

recognizes that the implementation of the Next Generation Air Transportation System 

(NextGen) set of technologies offers an important opportunity to reexamine its physical 

plant in terms of the nature and distribution of air traffic control facilities and its overall 

approach to air traffic management. We appreciate the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

recognition of FAA’s familiarity with the challenges involved and its constructive 

approach, which further validates FAA’s efforts to achieve greater operational 

efficiencies leading to cost savings. 

FAA continues to focus on improving and consolidating its air traffic facilities, though its 

approach has changed somewhat since the issuance of the draft report. Specifically, the 

NextGen Facilities Special Program Management Office (SPMO) has been integrated 

into the Air Traffic Organization (ATO), and reestablished as the Future Facilities 

Program. This organizational realignment more clearly focuses FAA’s efforts and 

consolidates management of all air traffic facility modernization, sustainment, 

replacement, and transformation efforts under the leadership of a single organization.

Planning for the first Integrated Control Facility (ICF) – the ICF servicing New York 

area—is currently underway. FAA is working with all stakeholders, external and 

internal, to gain the fullest possible participation and complete the project successfully. 
Appendix. Agency Comments

25

RECOMMENDATIONS AND RESPONSES

Recommendation 1: Develop a process to regularly update stakeholders regarding 

decisions associated with large-scale facility realignments and consolidations, including 

decisions regarding where the first facility will be built.

FAA Response: Concur. FAA’s air traffic control facility realignments and 

consolidations will impact hundreds of employees and multiple communities. 

Communicating with these stakeholder groups will be crucial in order to develop support 

for facility realignment and consolidation decisions. The FAA has identified key internal 

and external stakeholders (e.g. employees, communities, industry groups, Congress) and 

is planning to regularly update these stakeholders on FAA’s deliberations and progress. 

FAA recognizes the importance of communicating key benefits of these actions, helping 

employees understand why the changes are occurring and addressing questions and 

concerns of all stakeholder groups.

The communications plan for the facility realignment and consolidation effort is being 

drafted, and will be finalized once a Final Investment Decision (FID) is made for the first 

facilities transformation project (the ICF servicing New York), which is expected by May 

31, 2013.

Recommendation 2: Develop metrics that quantify the expected operational and cost 

efficiencies from future realignments and consolidations. At a minimum, these metrics 

should provide baseline data that can be used to measure whether these efficiencies are 

being achieved, and allow the Agency to adjust future plans and expected efficiencies in 

a timely manner as it moves forward with future realignments and consolidations.

FAA Response 2: Concur. The FAA’s NextGen Future Facilities Program is identifying 

operational and cost efficiency metrics that will provide a reliable baseline to measure the 

expected improvements following the completion of the planned ICF design for the New 

York area. These metrics will provide the basis for developing a cost/benefit analysis 

comparing the current facility mix versus a new ICF. Final metrics will be documented 

in the program’s Acquisition Program Baseline (APB) and will conform to FAA’s current 

Acquisition Management System (AMS) policy. The APB will be part of the ICF 

supporting the New York Final Investment Analysis package.

The metrics developed for the ICF servicing New York project will be reviewed and 

updated for subsequent large-scale realignments and consolidations, as they are planned, 

designed, and implemented. The metrics will be identified in the FID, which is expected 

by May 31, 2013.

Recommendation 3: Complete internal agreements between the SPMO, NextGen, and 

other ATO organizations to coordinate its large-scale realignments and consolidations 

efforts with other NextGen and modernization programs.
Appendix. Agency Comments

26

FAA Response 3: Concur. The NextGen Future Facilities Program is actively pursuing 

the establishment of Portfolio-level Agreements (PfLAs) with other critical acquisition 

programs across the FAA. The primary goal of these PfLAs is to inform FAA of other 

critical acquisition programs, formalize and coordinate the work required to deliver the 

first ICF servicing New York, and ensure successful project delivery. The PfLAs will 

define the critical dependencies, determine governance structure and authority and 

establish the processes to manage programmatic risk. PfLAs will be continuously 

developed throughout the process on an as needed basis. The FAA expects to complete 

the PfLA for the ICF servicing New York by May 31, 2013. Finally, the integration of 

the SPMO into ATO will also help to ensure full coordination and awareness of ICF 

requirements with other aspects of modernization.

Recommendation 4: Develop comprehensive and regularly updated cost estimates that 

include, at a minimum, estimates for construction, equipment, increased salaries, 

relocation expenses, and training.

FAA Response 4: Concur. The FAA developed comprehensive lifecycle program cost 

estimates to support its Initial Investment Decision (IID) business case analysis and 

budget requests. The FAA gathered and analyzed data, developed methodologies, and 

created the cost model to meet the Initial Investment Analysis cost estimating 

requirements. These requirements were based on the FAA’s AMS guidelines and GAO 

cost estimating guidelines.

Following IID in November 2011, the program has begun a thorough and complete 

review and refinement of the cost data, methodologies, and tools. Further refinement of 

cost analysis methodologies and development of higher confidence cost estimates are 

underway. Specifically, the program is prioritizing construction and equipment costs, 

implementation costs including project management and logistics support, as well as 

personnel-related costs including compensation and benefits, permanent change of station 

and training costs. Methodologies and assumptions are systematically reviewed and 

revised based on portfolio member input, ensuring the most accurate and current lifecycle 

cost estimate through validation activities. The program recognizes that a high fidelity 

estimate is crucial for the program to establish an achievable APB at FID. The APB will 

become the basis for programmatic Earned Value Management throughout the 

implementation phase. Future project cost estimates will be generated at a higher level of 

fidelity as actual costs are incorporated from previous projects, as the realignment and 

consolidation effort matures.

Recommendation 5: Further assess the cost, technical, operational, and workforce risks 

associated with individual realignments and consolidations, and develop risk mitigations 

plans for them.

FAA Response 5: Concur. The business case processes for the individual/ongoing 

realignment and consolidation efforts have evolved to be more inclusive of stakeholder 

needs. The current business case process for individual realignments and consolidations 
Appendix. Agency Comments

27

provides a framework that was developed by FAA to capture the initial cost, technical, 

operational, and workforce risks for each effort.

Supplementary questionnaires will be collaboratively developed by FAA and Labor to 

capture local management and union concerns – as a component of the future realignment 

efforts. The findings from these questionnaires will provide FAA leadership with a 

greater understanding of workforce perspective on risks, and the foundation for a targeted 

communications and risk mitigation approach. A Transition Management Plan will 

provide final risk mitigation strategies and plans, and will include controller training, 

staffing, backfill overtime and other considerations.

Additionally, the FAA will respond to the P.L. 112-95 Section 804, “Consolidation and 

Realignment of FAA Services and Facilities” requirement to develop a National Facilities 

Realignment and Consolidation Report. The plan will communicate the FAA’s long-term 

vision for facilities transformation. The plan will be submitted to the Committee on

Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate.