Facilities Subcommittee Meeting of November 2-3, 2005

1. Facilities Subcommittee Meeting of November 2-3, 2005 Characteristics of the Meeting: • 4 of the 5 Subcommittee members attended in person; all 5 members prepared and concurred in the written Subcommittee Report • 7 of the 12 NSF-invited Research Participants attended in person; 6 sent in written comments related to topics discussed in the meeting • there were no presentations; the entire meeting was devoted to discussion of identified Discussion Topics in the NSF Charge letter from Tom Cooley; participants felt this was a very effective format •the final hour of the meeting was devoted to identifying conclusions from the meeting that were concurred in (or in one case divergent views identified); the conclusions were refined in the Report and the recommendations were derived from the conclusions •the Research Participants were sent the final draft version of the Report for fact-checking and final comments, but the Report is entirely the responsibility of the Subcommittee

2. Facilities Subcommittee Report of November 17, 2005 Recommendations: 1. We recommend that each MREFC candidate project pass through three distinct project stages: Concept Design; Project Development; Project Construction. The Concept Design stage should be initiated by submission of an Initial Project Proposal to the appropriate NSF Program Division. The first two project stages should be completed by preparation of two associated project documents, the Conceptual Design Report, leading to Decision Point 1 and the Preliminary Design Report, leading to Decision Point 2. Completion of each project stage should entail the passing of a rigorous, non-advocate, expert project review based on these two design documents. 2. We recommend that MREFC candidate projects already underway in the NSF process be appropriately retrofitted to achieve the same standard of assurance for project success that future projects will face under Recommendation 1. 3. We recommend that all MREFC projects require a Project Development Plan (PDP), prepared by the cognizant program and approved by the NSF Director, that defines the detailed plan for preparing the project for construction, including its project-development plans and funding requirements. This step was proposed in the September 2005 Joint NSB/NSF policy document, “Setting Priorities for Large Research Facilities Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation – September 2005”.

3. Facilities Subcommittee Report of November 17, 2005 Recommendations (Continued): 4. We recommend that all MREFC projects identify in their project planning, provisions for project pre-operations, in particular project staffing and associated costs and support, as well as initial facility operations staffing, with associated costs and support for the facility. 5. We recommend that NSF develop and apply across the Foundation, a funding policy that recognizes that MREFC projects will typically require 10-20% of the project’s total construction costto successfully complete the requirements of the development stage, and that NSF reliably provide or identify this needed development stage support. 6. We recommend that NSF carefully identify and define ‘off-ramp’ provisions that can be invoked to terminate development-stage MREFC projects that are failing to meet the required conditions for approval by the National Science Board and for inclusion in a future NSF budget request. 7. We recommend that NSF explore and delineate the range of allowed pre-project activities that could be productively pursued by MREFC project staff after successful completion of the development stage and Decision Point 2, if and when there is an unavoidable delay in the start of construction project funding.

4. Facilities Subcommittee Report of November 17, 2005 Recommendations (Continued): 8. We recommend that NSF strengthen the authority of the Deputy for Large Facilities Projects in order to assure that the project management improvements noted in Recommendations 1-7 above are uniformity and effectively applied across the Foundation. We further recommend the addition of three to five upper-level professionals with project management skills to the DLFP staff; these staff additions are required to effectively realize these purposes.