1 / 10

Optimizing NSF Facility Development: Recommendations from Facilities Subcommittee Meeting Nov. 2-3, 2005

This report highlights key discussions from the Facilities Subcommittee Meeting held at NSF, focusing on planning and funding for Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction. Questions posed to the subcommittee address project development stages, funding structures, and continuity. Participants from diverse research fields provided insights into current processes. Recommendations for policy enhancements will be presented to the B&O Committee for review and approval. Deputy Director Mark Coles and Chair Tom Kirk led the discussions.

wgoodman
Download Presentation

Optimizing NSF Facility Development: Recommendations from Facilities Subcommittee Meeting Nov. 2-3, 2005

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Report of the Facilities Subcommittee Meeting Nov. 2-3, 2005 Mark Coles Deputy Director, Large Facility Projects, BFA and Tom Kirk Chair, Facilities Subcommittee of the Business and Operations Advisory Committee

  2. Background • Most recent meeting of the Facilities Subcommittee held Nov. 2-3 at NSF. • Examination of NSF processes for planning and funding preconstruction development activities for Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC)

  3. Questions posed to Subcommittee by BFA: • At what stage of project development should NSF receive an initial proposal, and what should it contain? • For example, should NSF require that an initial proposal for a large facility include a conceptual design and supporting materials? • How should these implementation details be substantiated?

  4. Questions (ctd): • When further, more detailed planning is required beyond the initial proposal, how should that work be structured? • How should that planning be funded to avoid distorting the cognizant division’s base program? • Are there alternate ways for NSF to provide pre-construction funding of MREFC projects that would facilitate the availability of adequate resources for advanced planning and development?

  5. Questions (ctd): • At what stage of project development should the project scope, budget, and schedule be reported for inclusion in a future federal budget?

  6. Questions (ctd): • Can the final preconstruction design activities, approval of the project for inclusion in a future NSF budget request, and the appropriation process be better orchestrated to reduce the likelihood of a project being in a “new start” pool for an extended period? • How can NSF maintain continuity of funding during the transition from preconstruction to construction activities, and minimize the likelihood of a cost surprise as final preconstruction planning and budgeting occurs?

  7. Invited Participants • Represent a broad range of facility-intensive research fields • Telescopes • Ships and other oceanographic instrumentation • Accelerators and elementary particle detectors • Underground laboratories • Seismology and other fields of earth science • High performance computing

  8. Participants in the subcommittee meeting • Participants were chosen because of their stature within their respective research communities, and their detailed knowledge of the strengths and weaknesses of current NSF processes for planning and funding the development of NSF-supported large facility projects • All candidate participants were reviewed with the Assistant Directors

  9. Invited Participants • Dr. David Berley, Professor of Physics, University of Maryland, College Park, MD • Dr. Robert Detrick, Vice President for Marine Facilities and Operations and Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, MA • Prof. Michael Purdy, Director of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, ColumbiaUniversity, New York, NY • Dr. Keith Raybould, Chief Operations Officer Project Coordinator. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, Moss Landing, CA • Prof. Daniel Reed, Director of the Renaissance Computing Institute, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC • Dr. Donald Rej, Director of Science and. Technology Base Programs, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM • Dr. Gary Sanders, Professional Staff of the Thirty Meter Telescope, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA • Dr. Ethan Schreier, President of Associated Universities, Inc., Washington, DC • Dr. David Simpson, President, Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology, Washington, DC • Mr. William S. Smith, Jr., President, Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., Washington, DC • Prof. Maury Tigner, Hans A. Bethe Professor of Physics Emeritus and Director of the Laboratory for Elementary-Particle Physics (LEPP), Cornell University, Ithaca, NY • Prof. William Willis, Eugene Higgins Professor of Physics, Columbia University, New York, NY

  10. Next Steps • Tom Kirk, as Chair of the Facilities Subcommittee, will report to the B&O Committee • BFA would like the B&O Committee to review and comment on the Subcommittee report, and make the report publicly available once approved by the B&O Committee • BFA requests the Facilities Subcommittee meet prior to the next B&O meeting to recommend enhancements to NSF’s policies for oversight of facility operation.

More Related