Detailed Information on the
National Park Service - Facility Maintenance Assessment

Conduct independent program evaluation for the National Park Service Life Cycle Asset Management Program.

Update FY 2006 & FY 2007 Deferred Maintenance, Current Replacement Values and resultant Facility Condition Indexes in accordance with Department of the Interior policy.

Develop an automated report system to monitor and analyze trends related to obligation balances for the construction account.

Work toward aligning base funding budget amounts to reflect actual expenditures for facility operations and maintenance.

Implement the Department of the Interior Electronic Capital Planning and Investment Control (E -CPIC) system consistent with Department policy to improve project execution and tracking.

Develop a tool and procedures to improve the alignment of funding with the project formulation process and setting National Park Service targets for performance metrics.

Measure: Condition of all standard assets (excluding paved roads) as measured by the Facility Condition Index (FCI).

Explanation:The National Park Service (NPS) owns and maintains a diverse range of physical assets that serve to support the mission of the Service??to protect resources unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. This measure tracks bureau-wide efforts to address deferred maintenance for seven of the eight industry standard assets including NPS occupied buildings, housing, campgrounds, trails, waste water system, water system, and unpaved roads through Facility Condition Index (FCI). Please note that a decrease in FCI indicates improving facility conditions. Paved roads are excluded from this measure and tracked in a separate PART measure.

Measure: Condition of Critical Systems for all standard assets (excluding paved roads) as measured by the Critical Systems Facility Condition Index (CS FCI).

Explanation:NPS has developed the Critical Systems approach to supplement the existing Facility Condition Index (FCI) metric. With over $8.7 billion in identified deferred maintenance backlog, it is necessary for the NPS to prioritize its most important needs. By addressing work that is tied to "critical" components of an asset and that is more immediate in nature, NPS can tie acceptable levels of condition to operability and functionality of its standard assets. Budget goals can be set to achieve an eventual "zero Critical Systems Deferred Maintenance (CS FCI = 0)" status for the park, region, or Service. Please note that a decrease in FCI indicates improving facility conditions.

Measure: Condition of all mission critical buildings (excluding housing) as measured by the Facility Condition Index (FCI).

Explanation:The National Park Service (NPS) owns and maintains a diverse range of buildings that support the mission of the Service??from administrative offices to visitor centers to operational buildings to comfort stations to historic/cultural buildings. Buildings (excluding housing) represent approximately 40% of the total number of standard assets in the Park Service while Mission Critical NPS occupied buildings represent more than a quarter of the total number of buildings in the Park Service. This measure tracks bureau-wide efforts to address deferred maintenance for mission critical buildings (excluding housing), i.e. those buildings with an asset priority index (API) of greater than 75 through Facility Condition Index (FCI). Please note that a decrease in FCI indicates improving facility conditions.

Measure: Condition of all paved roads as measured by the Facility Condition Index (FCI).

Explanation:The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) conducts a formal assessment of all paved roads and parking areas throughout the National Park Service. This is done via the Road Inventory Program (RIP).. These programs provide important inventory and condition assessment information about these facilities which can be utilized directly within NPS asset management efforts. This measure tracks bureau-wide efforts to address deferred maintenance on paved roads through the Facility Condition Index (FCI). Please note that a decrease in FCI indicates improving facility conditions.

Measure: Operations cost per gross square foot for mission critical buildings (excluding housing)

Explanation:NPS has established operational spending target of $4.99/GSF for its mission critical (Asset Priority Index (API >75) buildings using available funding. These targets take into account that buildings may not be adequately funded and sets increased operational targets by reallocating funding from maintenance and from lower priority buildings to higher priority buildings. The targets are developed from an aggregate of parks that have conducted Park Asset Management Plans (PAMPs) and have planned optimized O&M costs for different asset priority categories.

Measure: Maintenance cost per gross square foot for mission critical buildings (excluding housing)

Explanation:NPS has established a maintenance spending target of $1.50/GSF of for its mission critical (Asset Priority Index (API >75) buildings using available funding. This target calls for reduced maintenance spending through reallocation of funds to operations. The target is developed from an aggregate of parks that have conducted Park Asset Management Plans (PAMPs) and have optimized operations and maintenance costs across different asset priority categories.

Measure: Percent change in the total number of select building assets types (offices, warehouses, laboratory, and housing) that are underutilized or not utilized in the current fiscal year compared to the previous fiscal year.

Explanation:NPS has established a percent target for its under-utilized and non-utilized buildings. Given that the under-utilized + non-utilized rate for NPS's building portfolio in FY 2007 is stable and low at around 3%, the target will be non-changing and assume that NPS will try and stay at the actual rate set in FY 2006.

Measure: Percent of park-specific Asset Management Plans completed.

Explanation:A Park Asset Management Plan (PAMP) provides a snapshot of a park's asset portfolio, its current state, its funding requirements, and uses Facility Management Software System (FMSS) to drive the development of annual maintenance work plans based on priority and critical need. This measures tracks the completion of these plans.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Asset Management Program's purpose, as stated in the NPS Greenbook, is to "??(play) a key role for the NPS in fulfilling its mission by ensuring the continued protection, preservation, serviceability, and use of park facilities and infrastructure". This is closely linked to the mission of the National Park Service itself, as described in the National Organic Act of 1916, "...to promote and regulate the use of the...national parks...which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations".

Evidence: NPS Greenbook, Facility Operations & Maintenance-Mission Overview, p. ONPS-91. 16 U.S.C. Secs. 1 to 4 (The National Park Service Organic Act), 1916 NPS Mission Statement

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The need is to manage the 66,000+ assets in National Parks that are frequented by 275 million visitors annually.

Evidence: The efficient management of these real property assets is mandated by Public Law 98-540, Directors Order 80 and the Executive Order 13327.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: As described in the NPS Asset Management Plan (AMP), NPS facility maintenance programs are responsible for "??operations, maintenance, and recapitalization phases of the asset life cycle??" for the entire facility infrastructure within parks including some concessioner occupied assets. Increasing or decreasing funding for these programs has a direct impact on the condition of that infrastructure. No other Federal or non-Federal funding sources are available for this purpose.

Evidence: NPS Asset Management Plan, Section 5-Total Cost of Ownership, March 2007, p. 33. Sample: Concession Contract, ROMO001, Section 10 - Maintenance, pgs. 15-16

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: These capital asset programs are free from major design flaws. They are the only programs that address the Federal responsibility of federally owned facilities within National Parks.

Evidence: The business processes are articulated in the NPS Life Cycle Business Practices. A bureau real property scorecard has been in place since FY 2005 to measure progress towards the development and implementation of an effective asset management program. The NPS has also developed and implemented a Federal Real Property quality assurance/quality control program.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The programs are generally targeted effectively with most construction, design, and road repair work contracted out. Most construction work occurs through closely monitored contracts with funding, scope, and schedule monitored on a quarterly basis. NPS is directing investment and maintenance towards its highest priority assets. This is in compliance with Department of the Interior's (DOI) Budget Guidance which provides a project prioritization methodology that utilizes the Asset Priority Index (API) and a revised DOI scoring process.

Evidence: To date, the Line Item Construction Quarterly Obligation Report shows obligation of 87% of Line Item Construction funding for pre-2007 projects. Several pre-2007 projects will be closed out over the next few months that will increase this percentage substantially. FY 2011 DOI Budget Guidance (Attachment G), Project Prioritization, Page 16. NPS Assistant Director Memo on Line Item Construction Bidding Procedures and Flow Charts, April 2006.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: NPS can measure its performance in improving and sustaining assets by using the Facility Condition Index (FCI), Critical Systems Facility Condition Index (CS FCI), and Annual Operating Cost (O&M) performance measures. Baselines and targets for these long-term performance measures are in place for standard assets (buildings, trails, campgrounds, housing, water and wastewater systems, unpaved roads), mission critical buildings, and paved roads. By combining these condition measures with a measure of an asset's importance to the park mission (Asset Priority Index, or API), NPS can target funding to improve the condition of priority assets.

Evidence: See annual and long term goals under the measures tab and NPS Greenbook, Regional Forecasts, GPRA Measures, and Strategic Goals, pgs. ONPS 105-8

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: NPS has developed ten-year facility condition and critical systems condition projections on its standard assets (excluding paved roads) portfolio based on available funding and documented them in the NPS Greenbook. The long-term target of eliminating critical systems deficiencies will be focused on high-priority assets in the next ten years.

Evidence: See annual and long term goals under the measures tab and NPS Greenbook, Regional Forecasts, GPRA Measures, and Strategic Goals, pgs. ONPS 105-8

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: NPS has a multi-year plan that articulates long-term goals and an annual Asset Management Plan that specifies tasks to achieve these long-term outcomes. These plans track completed condition assessments, entries in the Facility Management Software System, and use of FCI and API measures in making day-to-day asset management decisions. NPS is currently focused on completing Asset Management Plans for individual parks.

Evidence: See annual and long term goals under the measures tab and NPS Greenbook, Regional Forecasts, GPRA Measures, and Strategic Goals, pgs. ONPS 105-8

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: NPS has multiple annual measures for completing inventories, entering data into the Facility Management Software System, and comparing actual conditions with targets. Most of these are captured in requirements for completing Asset Management Plans for individual parks.

Evidence: Annual measures for completing comprehensive condition assessments and park-specific Asset Management Plans. See also annual and long term goals under the measures tab and NPS Greenbook, Regional Forecasts, GPRA Measures, and Strategic Goals, pgs. ONPS 105-8

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: NPS leadership has placed great emphasis on working with outside groups to better manage its asset portfolio. Outside of DOI, private parties such as concessioners, contractors, and Centennial Challenge partners, and federal agencies (e.g., FHWA, GSA) help to support NPS facility management goals and initiatives.

Evidence: Concessioners must now follow industry standard asset management business practices for concessioner-occupied assets, as specified in Concession Asset Management Plans (C-PAMPs). DOT's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the key partner for park roads, is working with NPS to produce better FCI baselines and targets for paved roads based on existing data from a road-specific performance measure (Pavement Condition Rating, or PCR). MOU between Concessions Program and PFMD, April 2007 (H) DO 21 - Donations and Fundraising (J) Federal Lands Highways Program Business Plan 2008-2012

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: NPS has not completed an independent evaluation on the effectiveness of the facility management program overall. The program has done well to incorporate independent verification and validation of performance data, but that is not sufficiently comprehensive to assess the effectiveness of the entire program. GAO and the DOI Inspector General have conducted independent reports on real property management and critical health and safety issues related to infrastructure.

Evidence: FY 2011 DOI Budget Guidance (Attachment G), Five-Year Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvement Plan FY 2011-15 DOI Inspector General Audit Report, January 2008 GAO Report, High Risk Series Federal Real Property, January 2003 GAO Report, Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, April 2007

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: NPS's project funding criteria are tied to DOI's goals of maintaining the mission delivery capability of its highest priority assets and reducing facility-related critical health and safety and resource protection needs. In addition, NPS links annual out-year performance targets to increases or decreases in budgets using an FCI scenario tool and tracking the progress in the NPS Facility Management Software System. Budget justifications include specific FCI targets for NPS overall, program specific, and for specific asset types affected by line-item construction projects.

Evidence: NPS creates 5-year plans for its capital and deferred maintenance projects. Future plans will use a revised quantitative scoring and ranking methodology outlined in DOI's FY 2011 Budget Guidance (Attachment G). This methodology places a priority on addressing deferred maintenance on high API assets with critical health and safety needs. NPS has also developed an FCI and Critical Systems FCI projection tool that uses inputs such as annual project funding, regional distribution percentages, baseline DM, Critical Systems DM, and CRV, deterioration, and inflation to project FCI and Critical Systems FCI at the Region and Servicewide levels. Additionally, the tool enables NPS to examine different funding scenarios to achieve certain goals. FY 2011 DOI Budget Guidance (Attachment G), Project Prioritization, Page 16 Critical Systems Funding by API Bin NPS Greenbook, Change in Facility Condition Index, pgs. Overview 10-11 NPS Project Scoring Criteria and Presentation, pgs. 13-16 NPS Greenbook, FCI Forecasts By Region, p. ONPS 105

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: NPS has made improvements in asset management, including better construction project management, service-wide condition assessments, the establishment of FCI and Critical Systems FCI performance measures, and the creation of Concession asset and Park Asset Management Plans. These plans identify all the life cycle requirements by work type that when completed, will roll up to the creation of Servicewide goals. The issuance of Executive Order 13327, Federal Real Property Guidelines, and the DOI Asset Management Plan all have contributed to the strengthening of the NPS strategic plan addressing the management of its asset portfolio.

Evidence: Construction projects must demonstrate how they address deferred maintenance. Large parks are now developing park-specific Asset Management Plans (PAMP) that incorporate multiple performance measures. Headquarters or Regional directors are now responsible for approving concessioner-constructed capital improvement projects over certain dollar limits, but may delegate responsibility for smaller projects. Sample: Mesa Verde National Park 001 Fair View Lodge Construction Project, May 2007 Sample: Glacier National Park 001 New Construction Director Approval, February 1, 2008 Sample: Q4 '07 NPS Real Property Internal Scorecard Sample: Q4 '07 NPS Three Year Rolling Timeline status update NPS AMP 2008 Park Asset Management Plan Analysis, Improvement on High Priority Assets Revised Delegation of Approval Authority Concessioner, March 17, 2007 Sample: Great Smoky National Park Concessions Park Asset Management Plan, pgs. 33-41

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: NPS conducts value analysis and value engineering to identify potential cost savings and evaluate trade-offs between cost, risk and performance. It also uses capital asset plans for major projects. Employees involved in managing major capital construction projects are or have received project management professional (PMP) training and certification to improve skills related to alternative analysis. NPS has created a new facility planning model to prepare size and space standards for major facilities, as recommended by the 1998 NAPA report. This program provides the NPS with a defensible space allocation based on functional needs and incorporates other industry/government sources.

Evidence: Sample: Value Engineering/Value Analysis Workshop, Natchez Trace Parkway, May 2007 Sample: OMB Ex-300 Capital Asset Plans Facility modeling program is used to develop space allocation benchmarks and requirements for NPS construction projects. Sample: Facility Model worksheet, Replacement of Quarry Visitor Center at DINO

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: NPS collects extensive real property management data in its Facility Management Software System, including data from partners such as FHWA and concessioners, and uses this information to prepare performance measures, such as FCI and API, that inform decision-making and other management actions.

Evidence: Most management decisions are made at a park or regional level. For example, the Pacific West Region (PWR) used the Facility Management Software System to make a data-driven investment decision to increase Regular Cyclic Maintenance funds from $2M/year to about $6M/year beginning in FY 2008 for paved roads rehabilitation. This decision was based on the fact that paved roads comprise more than 58% of the current replacement value for all of the Region's standard assets, yet are in worse condition (FCI of 0.267 vs. FCI 0.202 for standard assets). This change would bring the investment strategy for PWR roads in line with other PWR assets. NPS also uses performance information at a national level, such as by comparing FCI levels between regions, preparing capital asset plans, reviewing Park Asset Management Plans, and setting out-year improvement targets at the Region and Servicewide levels. The Concessions asset management program also tracks concessioner performance according to their contract and agreed-upon maintenance plan. The Concession Program has recently implemented a clause in maintenance plans for Great Smokey's concession assets that require the larger concession operations to submit maintenance data by asset in an electronic format, which will be migrated to the Facility Management Software System.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: NPS has begun to hold individual park managers accountable for facility conditions. NPS leadership has allocated certain maintenance funds to parks on the basis of their progress in completion of condition assessments. Development Advisory Board (DAB) reviews hold superintendents accountable for specific construction projects. The Directors Approval Form on Line Item Construction projects ensures compliance with the cost schedule and makes sure that performance is in agreement with DAB review. NPS holds construction contractors accountable for performance and schedule by keeping a "retainage list" of all contractors and taking action against those contractors that fail to meet schedule or performance goals. Over the last 5 years, 90% of Line Item Construction projects have been within cost and on schedule.

Evidence: A variety of memos from NPS leadership on project completeness, accuracy and use of asset data. Senior manager performance ratings are tied to successful annual FRPP reporting and certification. Listing of NPS Contractors on Retainage Listing of NPS Contractors Against Whom Action has been Taken PPFL Memorandum on Bidding Procedures NPS Implementation Memo and Supporting Detail by Program, Program Specific One Pagers Sample: Denali National Park & Preserve 001 Facility Maintenance Evaluation, October 2006 Sample: Development Advisory Board Project Review Report, Great Smoky National Park PMIS#135972 Cost Comparables, February 2007, p. 3

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: NPS still carries forward significant balances in construction, cyclic maintenance, supplemental, and recreation fee accounts. NPS has prepared a line-item construction obligations report, but this is not automated or prepared consistently, so it not available for regular use. Similarly, NPS is working on recreation fee tracking reports that should help in monitoring balances, but more work is needed. NPS also needs to obligate emergency supplemental and cyclic maintenance funds in a timely manner.

Evidence: Line-item Construction Quarterly Obligation Rates (4/18/08) Recreation Fee Obligation Reports SF-133 quarterly reports on obligations by account. Sample: Capital Asset Plan Report by Region

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: NPS has implemented competitive construction bidding procedures for its capital construction projects. In addition, Director's Order #90 has set forth a policy and required procedures to maintain a productive value analysis program for programs including but not limited to line-item construction, recreation and park pass fees, Federal Highways, partnerships, fire protection, housing, and repair/rehabilitation. (Value analysis includes value engineering, value planning, value management, value methods, and value control.) NPS also measure efficiencies in operations and maintenance (O&M) through the tracking of related costs in FRPP and has set targets that will increase operations funding to mission critical assets (API>75) by reallocate funding from non mission critical assets.

Evidence: See measures tab on targets for operations & maintenance costs per gross square foot (mission critical buildings) Sample: Development Advisory Board Project Review Report, Great Smoky National Park PMIS#135972 Cost Comparables, February 2007, p. 3 Sample: Most Efficient Organization (MEO), NPS Letter: Preliminary Planning Effort for Golden Gate National Recreation Area's Maintenance Division, July 2004 (n/a) Director's Order #90

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NPS collaborates effectively and extensively with DOI's Office of Acquisition and Property Management (PAM). NPS's asset management staff actively participate in the DOI Asset Management Partnership, whose primary function is to identify, formulate, and propose guidance, plans, and strategies for all bureaus to be able to meet EO 13327. NPS's associate director for Park Planning Facilities and Lands is on the DOI Asset Management Team, which consists of other senior level managers from all bureaus and provides review and input on asset management policy issues and work done by the DOI Asset Management Partnership. NPS Roads also collaborates with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to capture inventory and deferred maintenance on park roads and structures.

Evidence: NPS's contributions to DOI business practices include the DOI project scoring criteria and process, and a DOI "Policy on Deferred Maintenance and Current Replacement Value for Roads". As part of the improvement actions cited in the 2003 PART of Federal Highway Administration/Federal Lands Highway Program, Federal Lands is working with NPS to develop agreed upon performance measure to implement program delivery plan and more clearly link goals and performance. The final draft is at NPS for review and approval, and an endorsement is expected soon. DOI Asset Management Team Charter DOI Asset Management Partnership Charter 2003 Federal Highway Administration/Federal Lands Highway Program PART NPS Implementation Memo and Supporting Detail by Program Memos of Understanding (MOU) with Partners, Facility Management Software System support Asset Management Advisory Group Charter, p. 3 Concession Program Conference, 2008

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: NPS needs to better integrate financial information and systems to support day-to-day operations. NPS has made progress in removing a material weakness, but it has still not shown how it effectively uses financial systems in support of facility maintenance. A key step will be addressing the IG's finding that NPS budgets are not consistent with actual expenditures, which NPS plans to do in the FY10 Budget.

Evidence: IG report on NPS recording of facility maintenance expenditures (1/05). FY07 audit for NPS still show facility maintenance as a reportable condition

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: NPS has made improvements in past management deficiencies, such as better recording of expenditures for facility maintenance, tracking of unobligated balances, and verifying the accuracy of FCI data. NPS and DOI are working together to standardize the calculation and application of FCI across all DOI bureaus. If NPS and DOI continue these steps, they will be able to resolve outstanding concerns about unobligated balances and financial management for facility management.

Evidence: NPS recent surveys have also collected suggestions for improving asset management business practices. The Concession Program is addressing management deficiencies through education and training, revised policies such as approval authority for concessioner funded capital improvements and development of construction processes, tools and guidance. IV&V Reports, 2002, pgs. 3-4, 2004, pgs. 5-10, 2006, pgs. 15, 23-34 Facility Management Software System and Asset Mgmt E-course Customization Scope of Work Sample: BLRI Asset Management Oversight Scope of Work Administration of Concessioner Funded Improvement Projects Administration of Concessioner Funded Improvement Projects Workbook

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: Capital asset plans for construction projects clearly defines project deliverables, performance characteristics, and cost and schedule goals. NPS compiles a completion report for line-item construction projects, showing the status of projects, the original cost estimate submitted to congress, and actual construction costs. The summary of the completion report for FY 04 and FY 05 shows that Line Item Construction is awarding contracts very close to the engineers estimate and has awarded 98% of FY 04 projects, and 93% of FY 05 projects.

Evidence: Sample: OMB Ex-300 Capital Asset Plans Sample: Line Item Construction Projects Completion Report, FY 2004, FY 2005 Sample: Summary of Line Item Construction Projects Completion Report, FY 2004, FY 2005 Sample: Development Advisory Board Project Review Report, Great Smoky National Park PMIS#135972, February 2007

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: NPS is beginning to demonstrate progress in achieving long-term performance improvement in the Facility Condition Index (FCI) and Critical Systems Facility Condition Index (CS FCI) performance measures. In the case of FCI-standard assets, NPS has tracked actuals since FY 2003 but it was only after FY 2005 that the data from inventories and condition assessments begun to stabilize to allow NPS to set targets. Consequently NPS has set targets since FY 2006 and improvements in condition are beginning to be shown.

Evidence: See measures section and; NPS Greenbook, Regional Forecasts, GPRA Measures, and Strategic Goals, pgs. ONPS 105-8 DOI/NPS Strategic Plan (GPRA), Section 7-Performance Goals and Measures, pgs. 72, 79

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: NPS met its annual goals for completing condition assessments, implementing Facility Management Software System, reporting Federal Real Property data in FY 2007, establishing an FY 2007 disposition candidate list, and showing disposition progress in FY 2007. NPS has achieved performance measure goals for completing scheduled park-specific Asset Management Plans (PAMPs) in FY 2007 (14), and annual under-utilization and non-utilization target rates for buildings. NPS and DOI still need to resolve inconsistencies on how FCI is calculated, particularly regarding assumptions over contingency amounts.

Evidence: See measures tab for annual FCI, PAMP completion, and Utilization targets. GPRA Utilization targets Sample: Q4 '07 NPS Real Property Internal Scorecard (B) Sample: Q4 '07 NPS Three Year Rolling Timeline status update (B)

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: NPS has established separate targets for operations dollars per square foot and maintenance dollars per square foot being spent on its building portfolio. This is done through a reallocation of funds to mission critical building operations from non-mission critical assets and maintenance. This is consistent with park-specific Asset Management Plans that have optimized O&M spending by priority of the asset. Capital construction projects demonstrate improved efficiencies and cost reductions through Value Analysis, Value Based decision process, and Value Engineering. NPS has instituted use of LEED rating system to reduce total life energy costs for facilities and improve asset performance.

Evidence: See measures tab on targets for operations & maintenance costs per gross square foot (mission critical buildings) NPS operations and maintenance costs in the Federal Real Property Profile. NPS AMP 2008 Park Asset Management Plan Analysis, Improvement on High Priority Assets FY 06-07 Critical Systems FCI Data and Out-year

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: NPS manages real property management data on 66,000+ assets within its Facility Management Software system, more than any other bureau within DOI. NPS is generally recognized by colleagues as a leader in value analysis. Other bureaus are now turning to NPS for help in implementing a facility management system. While obligation rates are not available for other bureaus or agencies, the NPS Line-Item Construction program's obligation (percentage of available funds obligated) rates have seen a steady increase from FY 2003 and reached a peak of 88% in FY 2007 which represented the program's highest obligation rate in over 25 years. FCI measures have also shown a relatively good improvement in facility conditions.

Evidence: Requests for interviews and workshop participation on real property management from US Department of Agriculture, Los Angeles Airport, Department of Homeland Security, Parks Canada, DOI Asset Management Partnership, etc. DSC Line-Item Construction Program Obligation Rates Graph, FY03-FY07

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: NPS has not completed an independent evaluation on the effectiveness of the facility management program overall. NPS gets some credit for evaluations of components, such as independent verification and validation of performance data. A GAO report from April 2007 on progress towards addressing real property management issues stated that DOI and NPS had significantly improved its management of maintenance and construction priorities and projects with the implementation of the 5-year plan, the facility condition index, and the asset priority index. NPS has taken steps in addressing health and safety concerns outlined in a DOI Inspector General (IG) audit report from January 2008 by utilizing a revised deferred maintenance and capital improvement project scoring and ranking methodology that places a priority on addressing deferred maintenance on high API assets with critical health and safety needs.

Evidence: IV&V Reports, 2002, pgs. 1-2, 2004, p. 5, 2006, pgs. 6-8 (E) IG DM Audit Report (K) GAO Report, High Risk Series Federal Real Property, January 2003 GAO Report, Progress Made Toward Addressing Problems, April 2007

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: NPS has made progress over the past year in meeting its annual goals for completing condition assessments, implementing Facility Management Software System, establishing FCI measures, and implementing the Park Asset Management Plan process. For the line-item construction program, NPS tracks design development for the past 5 years and most projects have met, cost, schedule and performance goals. A couple of large projects, notably Everglades Modified Water Delivery and Olympic Elwha River restoration, experienced significant cost overruns and delays, which were not identified in a timely manner through DOI's Capital Program and Investment Control (CPIC) process. DOI should strengthen its CPIC review of project execution and not just focus on budget formulation.

Evidence: [Reference DOI's CPIC documents.] CAC Integrated Master Schedule Park Asset Management Plan Schedule Concession Program CAC Master, 2002-2007 (H) Sample: Line Item Construction Projects Completion Report, FY 2004, 2005 (M) Sample: Summary of Line Item Construction Projects Completion Report, FY 2004, 2005