Presentation Transcript

1. Presentation to the Laboratory Operations Board: Infrastructure Assessment Subgroup February 20, 2014
2. Subgroup Purpose Subgroup Charter: This working group will assess how infrastructure is meeting the mission needs of DOE/NNSA. Deliverables will be directly linked to the DOE Strategic Plan and programmatic core capabilities. Deliverables A DOE-wide assessment of the as-is condition of the current infrastructure Inventory of mission unique facilities Asset physical condition and cost of maintenance and operations Functionality classifications of space for mission need Utilization analyses for optimal management of space Analysis and reporting tools for enterprise roll-up to support decision making for an enterprise strategy and budget submission to OMB Enhancements to FIMS as the enterprise data repository What do we need from the Laboratory Operations Board? Agreement to issue assessment guidance to all seventeen laboratories Agreement with the proposed “relief” items that will allow the laboratories to conduct the work in a short timeframe Endorsement/feedback on the reporting tools Agreement with the planned FIMS changes
3. How is infrastructure meeting mission needs? PNNL campusPast, present, and future Current Approach Actions Consistent definitions, criteria and data for the Department Uniform assessment of all assets Credible, data-driven infrastructure decisions aligned with program capabilities Lab level Program level Enterprise level Inconsistent definitions and criteria Inconsistent data Financial proxy used for infrastructure condition vs. mission orientation No enterprise view of infrastructure Credibility gap NEAR-TERM Lab Identified Capabilities Outcome Establish consistent definition and inventory of mission unique facilities Assess the condition of assets to support program capabilities Link functionality of space and its utilization to capabilities Link strategic plan, core capabilities and the assets that underpin them Report status aligned to core capability and DOE strategic objectives Remediate Legacy Contamination Infrastructure Assessment Team
4. Using Asset Data for Enterprise Decisions Asset-level condition, functionality and utilization data are used to identify gaps and surpluses. Gaps and surpluses are captured on a risk registry that describes 1)the mission impact of those gaps and surpluses and 2) ways to mitigate the risk. An understanding of the risks and mission impact allow a visual snapshot that shows how general infrastructure is meeting mission needs over time. Site-level assessments are analyzed by mission “owners” and the highest priority gaps, surpluses, and risks are captured at the capability level, and then at the enterprise level Site-Level Assessment of Assets
5. Using Asset Data for Enterprise Decisions Capabilities are mapped to DOE Strategic Objectives Infrastructure gaps/surpluses, risks, and planned investments are clearly tied to accomplishing our mission DOE Strategic Objective Site-level information is aggregated by capability Mission “owners” assess and prioritize, based on the risks and impacts to the overall core capability for the Department rather than for individual sites Programs identify planned investments with a clear mission need Programmatic Core Capability Assessments tell us the condition, functionality and utilization of each asset Each of those assets is linked to a mission capability The site uses that information to identify infrastructure gaps and surpluses The site also identifies the risks/impacts those gaps and surpluses have on mission delivery at their site The site proposes mitigation options – either locally or with DOE investment Asset, Site
6. Example: Gaps and Surpluses at JLAB LEGEND: Green = Adequate Yellow = Sub Standard Red = Inadequate
7. Example: Risk Registry NOTIONAL
8. Example: Infrastructure Condition – Accelerator Science NOTIONAL
9. ANL Example: Assessment and Monitoring Tool 2011 Infrastructure Picture 2014 Infrastructure Picture
10. Assessment of the As-Is Condition We propose to make tactical changes to each stage of the condition assessment process that will result in comprehensive, credible assessment of the condition and mission capability of all seventeen laboratories. Inventory of Facilities: apply a common definition for “mission unique” assets Asset Condition: introduce qualitative ratings that allow management-level input Functionality: define consistent, rigorous standards for various space types Utilization: apply a common standard to analyze the utilization of space Gaps and Surpluses: common method for identifying gaps in qualitative conditions/functionality and over/under utilization of critical infrastructure that will enable enterprise level decision making Inventory of facilities Current asset condition and cost of operations Functionality for Mission Utilization Gaps and surpluses
11. Assessments Assessments will be conducted in two phases By June 1: site services and known substandard infrastructure (site discretion) By October: remainder of infrastructure Because assessments will focus on the relationship of infrastructure to mission, significant engagement will be needed between facilities experts and programmatic “owners” Mission Unique Facilities will not be included in the assessment As the assessments are being conducted, frequent “check-in” with the LOB subgroup will be essential
12. Inventory Definition of a Mission Unique Facility: One-of-a-kind, physically unique, large-scale, technically complex, long-lived operations that are critical resources to the mission of the DOE and to the nation. These facilities are essential to the development of the innovative, breakthrough technologies required for DOE to deliver on its core mission. They each were specifically designed, constructed, and are being operated to provide mission-essential, unique capabilities and are not easily reconfigurable for alternate use. These Mission Unique Facilities include the following: Accelerators (Particle and Light Sources) High Performance Computing Facilities Fission Reactors (e.g., Advanced Test Reactor, High Flux Isotope Reactor) Fusion Research Devices (e.g., NSTX) High Performance Lasers (e.g., NIF) Other Large, Unique Production and Waste Processing Facilities (e.g., MESA Semiconductor Facility at SNL, DWPF at SRS). Goal: Develop a set of criteria to identify DOE facilities that are unique and are not reconfigurable for alternate use. Why? To provide an enterprise-wide inventory of these facilities and their functionality. Also, because the way we manage and budget for these facilities is unique relative to general infrastructure, this inventory will allow these facilities to be set-aside for the rest of this assessment. Approach: Determine scope of mission unique facility definition and refine criteria Document criteria and prepare guidance Update FIMS
13. Guidance to the Laboratories & Sites: Inventory By March 31, 2014 Labs and Sites shall: Use the definition and guidance to identify Mission Unique Facilities at their sites. List each Mission Unique Facilities in a title block along with a narrative (~ two sentences) that helps readers understand why the facility is unique in the provided common format Excel form. List the real property FIMS assets including 3000 series OSFs that comprise the Mission Unique Facilities underneath this heading and description on the same form. Identify FIMS assets that make up the Mission Unique Facility. Email the completed Excel spreadsheet template to DOE Program contacts for final review and approval. Program will forward Mission Unique Facilities list with assets to APM for uploading in FIMS. Mission Unique Facilities will not be assessed at this time.
14. Asset Condition Summary of the Proposed Approach: Established qualitative rating system [Adequate, Substandard, Inadequate] Adapted from USMC process Assess condition relative to current mission Leverage existing assessment information Applied at asset level For Buildings & OSF (Utilities/Infrastructure) Identify & Implement required changes to FIMS Requires just two added fields & form Prepare guidance for Field implementation Instructions for consistent application Criteria definitions Assessment Process Flow Chart Field Assessment Form Prepare recommendations for Improved Operations Cost Data Quality and Utilization Desired Outcome: Assessment of all Substandard/Inadequate Facilities & Infrastructure Consistently applied using mission based criteria Goal: Allow for a qualitative evaluation to be factored in to the condition assessment process so that a management perspective can be used to complement quantitative results. Why? To assess condition relative to mission and core capability and provide a more comprehensive evaluation of infrastructure utilizing both qualitative and quantitative information. Approach: Develop criteria, guidance for qualitative ratings and comments Document criteria and guidance Modify FIMS for new elements Identify funding needed to meet most critical asset needs
15. Guidance to the Laboratories: Asset Condition Phase I 3/1 – 6/1 FY 16 Budget Submittal Perform assessment of deficient non-mission unique facilities Apply assessment guidance utilizing existing assessment reports or perform field assessment where warranted Provide summary assessment and enter into FIMS Provide narrative rationale for summary assessment and enter into FIMS Have sites provide cost of most critical asset needs Consider Pilot Study at several sites for Operating & Maintenance Cost Data Improvement Phase II 6/1 – 10/31 FY 17 Budget Submittal Perform assessment of remaining non-mission unique facilities Use same procedure as Phase I
16. Functionality/Utilization Goals: Define a common set of fundamental Space Types that enable the work we do, Measure the amount we have and, Assess our degree of use. Why? To define the site and enterprise in terms of enabling space defined with consistent attributes using rigorous and defensible assessment methodologies. To provide a transparent linkage between infrastructure needs and program capabilities. To translate space condition and performance in meaningful ways to downstream budgets needs and priorities (at the site, program and enterprise level). Approach: Buildings: Define a set of attributes for core space types (e.g. high bay, wet, dry, ventilation intensive, power intensive) Collect data at the room level (i.e. space type, size, utilization); aggregate at the building Site Service, Utilities and Other Infrastructure: Allow capture of utilization information (e.g. Tank capacity, utility system capacity, etc) Outcome: Consistent credible repeatable process that provides standardized utilization rating across the enterprise Capacity (constraints and availability) in mission relatable terms Functional and utilization data to allow us to make decisions at the site, program and, enterprise level
17. Functionality/Utilization: Output ROOMS BUILDING ΣSpace Types via Buildings link to program ΣSpace Types @Building, Site, Enterprise ΣSpace Types vs Key Attributes vs Hazard, and/or vs Security, and/or vs Condition, and/or vs Space “Room” Utilization vs Building Utilization Space Type = High Bay Size = Usable Sq Ft Utilization = 75% (Utilized) Hazard = Haz Cat II Security = Yes Utilization = Over-utilized Condition = Adequate
18. Functionality/Utilization: Guidance Buildings: Room by room categorization (space type, size, utilization) via a standard form Existing data leveraged but substantial new data collected (which some sites may not yet have) (2 revised fields, 14 new fields; data collection scaled & phased to align to Condition Assessment process) Asset Characteristics distinguish Space Types (ex. rad vs other hazard/ security level) Space Types - Functional Criteria for High Bay, Ventilation Intensive, Power Intensive, General-Wet, General-Dry, Office or Storage Size (usable square foot) Utilization – degree of use vs design capacity (tailored to the Space Type Aggregation at the Asset Level and Space Type Level Single Overall Asset Utilization rating (Over-utilized, Fully Utilized, Underutilized, Not Used) Overall Space Type utilization (Over-utilized, Fully Utilized, Underutilized, Alternatively Utilized, Not Used) Site Services, Utilities and Other Infrastructure: Focus is on Condition Assessment; Functional/utilization data is optional at this time
19. How are we going to capture this in FIMS? Enable FIMS to provide an inventory of mission unique assets upon request. Modify applicable existing data elements in FIMS and particular data fields to support requirements such as Repair Needs, Utilization, Capabilities, and Overall Condition. Add data elements to FIMS to support additional qualifying requirements such as Overall Asset Utilization, Use Categories, Mission Dependent Program, and Physical Condition Index. Create new pertinent reports to convert specific asset data into actionable information for analysis at the Program and at the Agency level. Amend the data dictionary to reflect new fields and definitions as well as an information board on the process to conduct the new Infrastructure Assessment Protocol. Manage the request for FIMS additions to control the efforts that will be placed on the Labs/Sites.
20. Resource Requirements This is a high priority task, and resources will be shifted to accommodate the requested schedule. Existing resources will be re-prioritized, and relief on other related requirements will be provided. Therefore, no new funding will be needed to execute these assessments. Estimated resource requirements: JLAB – 3 FTEs over 1 month ANL – 3 FTEs over 3 months SLAC – 2 FTEs over 3 months Sandia – 20 FTEs over 3 months ORNL – 4 FTEs over 3 months PNNL – 5 FTEs over 5 months (full campus strategy)
21. Relief Requested To free up resources for the expected intensive facility assessments planned, the laboratories requested relief on the following related requirements:
22. Path Forward What do we need from the Laboratory Operations Board? Agreement to issue assessment guidance to all seventeen laboratories Agreement with the proposed “relief” items that will allow the laboratories to conduct the work in a short timeframe Endorsement/feedback on the decision tools Understanding of the planned FIMS changes Next Steps Guidance will be issued via memorandum from the program office Chief Operating Officers to their respective laboratories by March 1 Vet Mission Unique Facility List with the programs by the end of March Assessments of critical site services and infrastructure known to be of concern will be requested by June 1 FIMS adjustments will be complete no later than mid-May, allowing data input to meet the June deadline Feedback from today’s discussion on the decision tools will be incorporated and presented back to the LOB in [next meeting], with the goal of finalizing them by June 1 Take advantage of the current Laboratory planning and budgeting process
23. BACKGROUND
24. Guidance to the Laboratories: Asset Condition
25. DOE Strategic Objectives
26. Department of Energy Utility and Site Systems Condition
27. Ten-Year Site Plan for FY 2014 Requirement: DOE Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management For each non-closure site, results of real property asset site planning and performance must be documented in a Ten-Year Site Plan (TYSP) that is kept current and covers a 10-year planning horizon. The plans are internal documents; however, the associated Integrated Facilities and Infrastructure (IFI) crosscut financial data is part the annual budget submission. Relief Program Secretarial Offices will prepare TYSP and IFI crosscuts with limited scope – Significant changes since the last submission; A prioritized list of real property investments over the next two years for use in supporting resource allocation decisions; and A two year projection of the site’s balance of office and warehouse space. MA Guidance that will be distributed DOE-wide has been drafted and circulated for review. The simplified TYSP will provide what is needed for the required IFI crosscut.
28. FIMS Validation for FY 2014 Requirements: DOE Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management, 41 CFR 102-84, and Executive Order 13327 DOE O 4301.B requires DOE field managers to ensure FIMS data is verified annually as complete and accurate using a QC process 41 CFR 102-84 states each agency that manages Federal real property must certify the accuracy of the real property information submitted to GSA.  It also states this must be prepared and submitted to GSA no later than December 15 of each year. EO 13327 states the Senior Real Property Officer shall, on an annual basis, provide to the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) information that lists and describes real property assets under their jurisdiction.  The FRPC is made up of Senior Real Property Officers, OMB Controller, GSA Administrator and other Federal officers. Department Senior Real Property Officer is required to personally attest to data quality Relief Quality assistance visits (JLab, SRS, PNNL) will occur; however, the assessments will acknowledge the level of effort being directed towards the LOB tasking
29. Condition Assessments for FY 2014 Requirement: DOE Order 430.1B, Real Property Asset Management Condition assessments must be performed on real property assets at least once within a five year period using inspection methods in accordance with industry standards. Sites typically follow a “rolling window” to ensure the condition of an asset has been assessed within five years Relief LOB tasking will suffice to meet this requirement Programs will clarify this expectation