Developing a Large Facilities Plan for NSF: Current Status and Future

1. Developing a Large Facilities Plan for NSF:Current Status and Future Mark Coles Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management , NSF 2011 NSF Large Facilities Workshop

2. Topics • Overview of NSF Facility Plan from February 2011 NSB meeting • NSB policies and themes regarding large facilities: • “Portfolio” view of the collection of major multi-user facilities, at all life cycle stages • NSB selection and prioritization to occur earlier in planning phase • Performance measures • Recompetition of operating awards 2011 NSF Large Facilities Workshop

3. NSF Facilities Investments NSF Facility Plan

4. MREFC project portfolio: construction vs. funding $117/165 NSF Facility Plan

5. NSF Facility Plan

6. NSF Facility Plan Note: FY2009 funding included a number of one-time investments made possible by the Recovery Act, primarily to address upgrades and deferred maintenance.

7. IceCubeTotal Project Cost = $ 280 million, Total NSF Cost = $242 million The IceCube team in front of the drilling and deployment tower following completion of the IceCube Neutrino Detector Installation of the last Digital Optical Module into the borehole

9. Alaska Region Research VesselTotal NSF Cost = $200 million

10. Advanced LIGO Total Project Cost = $230 Million, Total NSF Cost = $205 Million High-power laser components ready for assembly Prototype test mass quad suspension system Deinstallation of initial LIGO input optics for reuse

11. Ocean Observatories InitiativeTotal NSF Cost = $386 million Global Site Schematic Coastal – Pioneer Array NSF Facility Plan 11 Deployment locations

12. Advanced Technology Solar TelescopeTotal NSF Cost = $298 million The ATST primary mirror blank is placed into an annealing oven for a three-month cool-down. Photo courtesy of SCHOTT AG. Used with permission. Cutaway rendering of the ATST showing the telescope and the instrument platform (Image credit: L. Phelps, NSO/AURA)

13. 1 2 3 4 12 17 14 13 16 10 15 11 9 8 7 6 5 National Ecological Observatory NetworkTotal NSF budget request = $434 million Airborne hyper-spectral imaging system NEON will enable mobile ecological research at multiple distance scales NEON domains in the continental US. Additional domains in Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico Sensor tower similar to NEON NSF Facility Plan

14. Enhancing Future Facility Plans • Understanding the facility “ecosystem” • Managing NSF risk • Framing partnerships appropriately • Pursuing broader impacts

15. Conceptual Design Review (CDR) FinalDesign Review (FDR) Preliminary Design Review (PDR) Operations Review NSB Approved Operations Readiness Horizon planning and Conceptual Design Preliminary Design FinalDesign Construction Review Decision NSF’s large facility project planning process • Review science goals • Conceptual Design Stage • Requirements, initial estimates of cost (including operations), risk and schedule • Preliminary Design (“Readiness”) Stage • Definition and design of major elements, detailed estimates of cost, risk and schedule, partnerships, siting • Final Design Stage (“Board Approved”) Stage • Interconnections and fit-ups of functional elements, refined cost estimates based substantially on vendor quotes, construction team substantially in place NSF Facility Plan

16. NSB-10-65 August 26, 2010 National Science Board MREFC Process* NSF Facility Plan presented to the Board annually Joint CSB-CPP / February Congress appropriates funds (CDR) Conceptual Design 1 Preliminary Design 2 (PDR) 3 Final Design (FDR) 4 Construction • NSB approves project inclusion in future budget request • Based on rigorous design plans • Takes into account independent, non-advocacy review after PDR and prior to NSB approval • CPP / any meeting prior to August NSB approves proposals for planning and design throughout process (if above NSB threshold) CPP / any meeting NSB approves obligation of construction funds CPP / any meeting NSB Action toward Individual Projects • Annual NSB portfolio review • Based on non-advocate presentation of projects • Detailed assessment of post-CDR projects • NSB guidance to NSF on project prioritization • Portfolio Review as part of budget planning • SCF / May NSB prioritizes order of new construction starts (annually, as needed) CPP / over summer, prior to August NSB Action toward Portfolio *Approved by the National Science Board on August 26, 2010; based on NSB/CPP-10-61

17. NSB early prioritization • Role of NSB in early prioritization and assessment • Promoting collaborative international and interagency development partnerships • Encouraging research communities to describe what they want, and how NSF can feasibly contribute to a broader partnership 2011 NSF Large Facilities Workshop

18. NSB-08-12 : February 7, 2008: NATIONAL SCIENCE BOARD RESOLUTION COMPETITION AND RECOMPETITION OF NSF AWARDS WHEREAS, the Committee on Programs and Plans has reassessed, at its meeting of February 6-7, 2008, the major principles and key issues in a statement “Competition, Recompetition and Renewal of NSF Awards” (NSB/CPP-08-4) in the context of the various types of NSF awards. Therefore, be it RESOLVED that the National Science Board (the Board) endorsed strongly the principle that all expiring awards are to be recompeted, because rarely will it be in the best interest of U.S. science and engineering research and education not to do so.

19. More on NSB Recompetition in the August 2009 Board Statement: • There are organizational and management issues involved with the operation of large facilities, and hence NSF finds it necessary to conduct management reviews (as distinct from science reviews) at regular intervals and to provide feedback to the managing organizations, which also conduct such reviews. It is important that NSF provide proper guidance on how best to conduct these management reviews, along with defined review criteria and review forms. In particular, supplemental criteria addressing management issues should be used. Further, the user community should be periodically surveyed about the level of satisfaction with the services the performing organization is providing. This can often be as important as good management, and the two such reviews can provide a more holistic view of the awardee.

20. NSB…ctd • Even in cases where the management has been explicitly and rigorously reviewed and found to be effective, the benefits of competition may outweigh any short-term disadvantages of recompetition. NSF must determine periodically whether there is a better approach to managing the facility. The issue of recompetition should be explicitly addressed as a regular part of the decision process for every such award.

21. Implementation of NSB Policy should address several complex issues: • How to encourage and leverage non-federal contributions within a recompetition environment • How to develop and maintain an intellectual center in an environment of frequent recompetition • Cost competition vs. deferred maintenance • Defining what scope (people, property, subawards, etc.) is being competed • How to incorporate input from user community 2011 NSF Large Facilities Workshop

22. Performance measures • NSF Bulletin 09-11 “Inclusion of Performance Evaluation and Measurement Components into Cooperative Agreements for NSF Facilities in Operations” (2009): • Clear and agreed-upon goals and objectives; • Performance measures and, where appropriate, performance targets; • Periodic reporting; and • Evaluation and feedback to assess progress. 2011 NSF Large Facilities Workshop

23. Implementation • Identification and inclusion of annually updated facility-specific performance goals and objectives, within annual work plans provided by the Awardee to NSF; • Periodic reporting and assessment by the Awardee, especially in a section of the Annual Report from the Awardee to NSF, describing outcomes relative to performance goals or performance targets, and providing an assessment of causes for variances; • Feedback, through adjustment of the following year’s plans based on prior year results, by mutual agreement of the Awardee and NSF. NSF expects facilities to develop meaningful performance goals and objectives, for their own purposes and in consultation with their user communities.

24. Management Reviews • The review and evaluation of performance relative to plans, and the identification of future year goals and objectives, should be included within the scope of annual external reviews - reviews that are either led by, or include participation of, NSF

25. Implications for smaller scale facilities • NSB interested in applying principles of large facilities at smaller scales • Cross-linking to other programs • examples: SEES, CIF 21 • Considering opportunity costs of facility selection and operation 2011 NSF Large Facilities Workshop

26. Summary • NSF invites input from awardee institutions operating large facilities, and from their associated user communities, to develop effective implementation procedures in support of NSB policies