In 1996 the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) 1 enacted Standard Number 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E), the first government-wide initiative requiring federal agencies to report dollar amounts of deferred maintenance annually. The FASAB has identified four overall objectives in federal financial reporting: budgetary integrity, operating performance, stewardship, and systems and control. FASAB Standard Number 6, as amended, focuses on operating performance and stewardship. The FFC Standing Committee on Operations and Maintenance has prepared this report to identify potential issues that should be considered in any future amendments to the standard and to suggest approaches for resolving them. The committee's intent is to assist the CFO Council, federal agencies, the FASAB, and others as they consider how best to meet the objectives of federal financial reporting for facilities.
The federal government has invested more than $300 billion in 500,000 buildings and other facilities worldwide to support the provision of government services. Evidence is mounting that the physical condition, functionality, and quality of federal facilities are deteriorating. Stewardship of Federal Facilities identifies factors and processes contributing to this deterioration and recommends a framework of methods, practices, and strategies to foster accountability for the stewardship of federal facilities and to allocate resources for their maintenance and repair.
Although most federal facilities projects are successfully completed (i.e., they reasonably meet the agency's requirements and expectations), the perception is that development of the scope of work for design for these projects is challenging and in some cases poorly performed. Based on this perception, a study was commissioned by the Federal Facilities Council (FFC) of the National Research Council to identify the elements that should be included in a scope of work for design to help ensure that the resulting facility is one that supports the fulfillment of a federal agency's program or mission. Its objectives also included identifying key practices for developing effective scopes of work for design involving new construction or major renovation projects and identifying key practices for matching the scope of work with the acquisition strategy, given a range of project delivery systems and contract methods.
Many factors affect the amount of temperature-induced movement that occurs in a building and the extent to which this movement can occur before serious damage develops or extensive maintenance is required. In some cases joints are being omitted where they are needed, creating a risk of structural failures or causing unnecessary operations and maintenance costs. In other cases, expansion joints are being used where they are not required, increasing the initial cost of construction and creating space utilization problems. As of 1974, there were no nationally acceptable procedures for precise determination of the size and the location of expansion joints in buildings. Most designers and federal construction agencies individually adopted and developed guidelines based on experience and rough calculations leading to significant differences in the various guidelines used for locating and sizing expansion joints. In response to this complex problem, Expansion Joints in Buildings: Technical Report No. 65 provides federal agencies with practical procedures for evaluating the need for through-building expansion joints in structural framing systems. The report offers guidelines and criteria to standardize the practice of expansion joints in buildings and decrease problems associated with the misuse of expansions joints. Expansions Joints in Buildings: Technical Report No. 65 also makes notable recommendations concerning expansion, isolation, joints, and the manner in which they permit separate segments of the structural frame to expand and to contract in response to temperature fluctuations without adversely affecting the buildings structural integrity or serviceability.
The federal government, like private corporations and other organizations, acquires buildings and other facilities to support specific functions and missions and the general conduct of its business. The federal government is, in fact, the nation's largest owner of buildings and spends more than $20 billion per year for facility design and construction. Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Processidentifies a range of best practices and technologies that can be used by federal agencies and other owners to provide adequate management and oversight of design reviews throughout the facility acquisition process.
In 1996 the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) 1 enacted Standard Number 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E), the first government-wide initiative requiring federal agencies to report dollar amounts of deferred maintenance annually. The FASAB has identified four overall objectives in federal financial reporting: budgetary integrity, operating performance, stewardship, and systems and control. FASAB Standard Number 6, as amended, focuses on operating performance and stewardship. The FFC Standing Committee on Operations and Maintenance has prepared this report to identify potential issues that should be considered in any future amendments to the standard and to suggest approaches for resolving them. The committee's intent is to assist the CFO Council, federal agencies, the FASAB, and others as they consider how best to meet the objectives of federal financial reporting for facilities.
The design, construction, operation, and retrofit of buildings is evolving in response to ever-increasing knowledge about the impact of indoor environments on people and the impact of buildings on the environment. Research has shown that the quality of indoor environments can affect the health, safety, and productivity of the people who occupy them. Buildings are also resource intensive, accounting for 40 percent of primary energy use in the United States, 12 percent of water consumption, and 60 percent of all non-industrial waste. The processes for producing electricity at power plants and delivering it for use in buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. federal government manages approximately 429,000 buildings of many types with a total square footage of 3.34 billion worldwide, of which about 80 percent is owned space. More than 30 individual departments and agencies are responsible for managing these buildings. The characteristics of each agency's portfolio of facilities are determined by its mission and its programs. In 2010, GSA's Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings asked the National Academies to appoint an ad hoc committee of experts to conduct a public workshop and prepare a report that identified strategies and approaches for achieving a range of objectives associated with high-performance green federal buildings. Achieving High-Performance Federal Facilities identifies examples of important initiatives taking place and available resources. The report explores how these examples could be used to help make sustainability the preferred choice at all levels of decision making. Achieving High-Performance Federal Facilities can serve as a valuable guide federal agencies with differing missions, types of facilities, and operating procedures.
The federal government has invested more than $300 billion in 500,000 buildings and other facilities worldwide to support the provision of government services. Evidence is mounting that the physical condition, functionality, and quality of federal facilities are deteriorating. Stewardship of Federal Facilities identifies factors and processes contributing to this deterioration and recommends a framework of methods, practices, and strategies to foster accountability for the stewardship of federal facilities and to allocate resources for their maintenance and repair.
Although most federal facilities projects are successfully completed (i.e., they reasonably meet the agency's requirements and expectations), the perception is that development of the scope of work for design for these projects is challenging and in some cases poorly performed. Based on this perception, a study was commissioned by the Federal Facilities Council (FFC) of the National Research Council to identify the elements that should be included in a scope of work for design to help ensure that the resulting facility is one that supports the fulfillment of a federal agency's program or mission. Its objectives also included identifying key practices for developing effective scopes of work for design involving new construction or major renovation projects and identifying key practices for matching the scope of work with the acquisition strategy, given a range of project delivery systems and contract methods.
The U.S. government is faced with growing challenges to managing its facilities and infrastructure. A number of factors such as shrinking budgets, an aging workforce, and increasing costs demand new approaches to federal facilities management. The Federal Facilities Council of the NRC has sponsored a number of studies looking at ways to meet these challenges. This fourth study focuses on the people and skills that will needed to manage federal facilities in the next decade and beyond. The book presents a discussion of the current context of facilities management; an analysis of the forces affecting federal facilities asset management; an assessment of core competencies for federal facilities management; a comprehensive strategy for workforce development; and recommendations for implementing that strategy.
In 1996, the Federal Facilities Council (FFC), which operates under the aegis of the National Research Council, established a standing committee on Environmental Engineering with the express purpose of providing a forum where federal environmental engineers and program managers could meet on a regular basis to exchange information about facilities-related environmental programs, policies, and issues. The committee members, like environmental program managers in other types of organizations, are increasingly concerned about achieving and demonstrating sound environmental performance by meeting the requirements of environmental regulations and limiting the impacts of their products or services on the environment. To foster communication and address concerns about EMSs, the FFC Standing Committee on Environmental Engineering hosted a one-day workshop on Environmental Management Systems and ISO 14001. The workshop was held April 9, 1998, at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C.
Title 46 presents regulations applied by the Coast Guard to merchant marine officers and seamen, uninspected vessels, tank vessels, load lines, marine engineering, documenting and measuring vessels, passenger vessels, cargo and miscellaneous vessels, offshore supply vessels, mobile offshore drilling units, electrical engineering, small passenger vessels, oceanographic vessels, occupational safety and health standards, and lifesaving systems. Maritime Administration regulations cover policies, practices and procedures, maritime carriers, subsidized vessels, vessel financing assistance, emergency operations, training, and ports. The Maritime Commission also holds the responsibility for maritime carriers, terminals, tariffs, domestic offshore commerce, and foreign commerce.
More than 30 federal departments and agencies with a wide range of missions and programs manage large inventories of facilities, also called portfolios. These portfolios range in size from a few hundred to more than a hundred thousand individual structures, buildings, and their supporting infrastructure. They are diverse in terms of facility types, mix of types, and geographic dispersal. For federal senior executives, facilities portfolio-related decisions revolve around the allocation of resources (staff, funding, time) for acquisition, renovation, operation, repair, and disposition of facilities. To make informed decisions, senior executives require information that will allow them to answer such questions as: What facilities do we have? What condition are they in? What facilities are needed to support the organization's missions? This study lays out a framework for developing and evaluating trends in facilities portfolio conditions, investments, and costs and identifies a set of key indicators that can be used to track performance over time. Some of the indicators are currently in use in some federal agencies; others will need to be developed.
The design, construction, operation, and retrofit of buildings is evolving in response to ever-increasing knowledge about the impact of indoor environments on people and the impact of buildings on the environment. Research has shown that the quality of indoor environments can affect the health, safety, and productivity of the people who occupy them. Buildings are also resource intensive, accounting for 40 percent of primary energy use in the United States, 12 percent of water consumption, and 60 percent of all non-industrial waste. The processes for producing electricity at power plants and delivering it for use in buildings account for 40 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. federal government manages approximately 429,000 buildings of many types with a total square footage of 3.34 billion worldwide, of which about 80 percent is owned space. More than 30 individual departments and agencies are responsible for managing these buildings. The characteristics of each agency's portfolio of facilities are determined by its mission and its programs. In 2010, GSA's Office of Federal High-Performance Green Buildings asked the National Academies to appoint an ad hoc committee of experts to conduct a public workshop and prepare a report that identified strategies and approaches for achieving a range of objectives associated with high-performance green federal buildings. Achieving High-Performance Federal Facilities identifies examples of important initiatives taking place and available resources. The report explores how these examples could be used to help make sustainability the preferred choice at all levels of decision making. Achieving High-Performance Federal Facilities can serve as a valuable guide federal agencies with differing missions, types of facilities, and operating procedures.
The federal government, like private corporations and other organizations, acquires buildings and other facilities to support specific functions and missions and the general conduct of its business. The federal government is, in fact, the nation's largest owner of buildings and spends more than $20 billion per year for facility design and construction. Adding Value to the Facility Acquisition Processidentifies a range of best practices and technologies that can be used by federal agencies and other owners to provide adequate management and oversight of design reviews throughout the facility acquisition process.
The deteriorating condition of federal facilities poses economic, safety, operational, and environmental risks to the federal government, to the achievement of the missions of federal agencies, and to the achievement of public policy goals. Primary factors underlying this deterioration are the age of federal facilities-about half are at least 50 years old-and decades of inadequate investment for their maintenance and repair. These issues are not new and there are no quick fixes. However, the current operating environment provides both the impetus and the opportunity to place investments in federal facilities' maintenance and repair on a new, more sustainable course for the 21st Century. Despite the magnitude of investments, funding for the maintenance and repair of federal facilities has been inadequate for many years, and myriad projects have been deferred. Predicting Outcomes of Investments in Maintenance and Repair of Federal Facilities identifies processes and practices for transforming the current portfolio of federal facilities into one that is more economically, physically, and environmentally sustainable. This report addresses ways to predict or quantify the outcomes that can be expected from a given level of maintenance and repair investments in federal facilities or facilities' systems, and what strategies, measures, and data should be in place to determine the actual outcomes of facilities maintenance and repair investments.
In the late 1990s, several of the sponsor agencies of the Federal Facilities Council began developing and implementing initiatives and policies related to sustainable development. Guidance related to life-cycle costing and value engineering was recognized as being supportive of sustainable development, in particular when used in the conceptual planning and design phases of acquisition, where decisions are made that substantially effect the ultimate performance of a building over its life cycle. However, specific concerns were raised that when federal agencies apply value engineering in the final stages of design or during construction in response to cost overruns, design features that support sustainable development may be eliminated. The primary objective of this study, therefore, was to develop a framework to show how federal agencies can use value engineering and life-cycle costing to support sustainable development for federal facilities and meet the objectives of Executive Order 13123.
Many factors affect the amount of temperature-induced movement that occurs in a building and the extent to which this movement can occur before serious damage develops or extensive maintenance is required. In some cases joints are being omitted where they are needed, creating a risk of structural failures or causing unnecessary operations and maintenance costs. In other cases, expansion joints are being used where they are not required, increasing the initial cost of construction and creating space utilization problems. As of 1974, there were no nationally acceptable procedures for precise determination of the size and the location of expansion joints in buildings. Most designers and federal construction agencies individually adopted and developed guidelines based on experience and rough calculations leading to significant differences in the various guidelines used for locating and sizing expansion joints. In response to this complex problem, Expansion Joints in Buildings: Technical Report No. 65 provides federal agencies with practical procedures for evaluating the need for through-building expansion joints in structural framing systems. The report offers guidelines and criteria to standardize the practice of expansion joints in buildings and decrease problems associated with the misuse of expansions joints. Expansions Joints in Buildings: Technical Report No. 65 also makes notable recommendations concerning expansion, isolation, joints, and the manner in which they permit separate segments of the structural frame to expand and to contract in response to temperature fluctuations without adversely affecting the buildings structural integrity or serviceability.
Available and emerging information technologies hold the promise of enhancing the quality of federal workplaces; supporting worker productivity; improving capital asset management, programming, and decision making; reducing project delivery time; and changing how buildings are constructed and operated. Federal agencies, however, face a significant challenge in identifying technologies that will justify the investment of time, dollars, and resources, will have the flexibility to adapt to changing circumstances over the longer term, and will not be obsolete before they are deployed. To begin to address these challenges, the Federal Facilities Council (FFC) sponsored a symposium entitled "Emerging Information Technologies for Facilities Owners: Research and Practical Applications" at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., on October 19-20, 2000.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.