OIG: NASA Has Too Much Broken and Unused Old Stuff
NASA Infrastructure: Enabling Discovery and Ensuring Capability, Testimony of NASA OIG Paul Martin
“NASA is the ninth largest Federal Government property holder, controlling approximately 4,900 buildings and structures with an estimated replacement value of more than $30 billion. More than 80 percent of the Agency’s facilities are 40 or more years old and beyond their design life. However, NASA has not been able to fully fund required maintenance for its facilities and in 2012 estimated its deferred maintenance costs at $2.3 billion. Moreover, a 2012 Agency study estimated that NASA may have as many as 865 unneeded facilities with associated annual maintenance costs of more than $24 million.”
NASA Desperately Needs Road Map to Manage Aging Assets, House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
“According to NASA’s own study, the agency has a backlog of nearly $2.2 billion in deferred maintenance. NASA is the ninth largest real property holder in the federal government. However, nearly 80 percent of the agency’s facilities are 40 or more years old.”
Testimony of NASA AA Richard Keegan on NASA’s Aging Infrastructure
Keith’s note: Summary: NASA does not admit that there are any problems and wants you to think all is well. NASA does not really do anything to address the issues raised by everyone else, but they sure do a lot of studies.
This report seems to mix the obvious with the dubious. Yes, that’s right: when you cut the budget for maintenance, buildings won’t get maintained. This is a true statement, and a sad comment on the state of affairs, but hardly something that you need an OIG study to conclude.
On the other hand, if the maintanence costs of facilities that are currently unneeded (but might be needed in the future) is merely 24 million, this is less that 0.2% of the NASA budget. The OIG seems to call this “NASA’s historic ‘keep it in case you need it’ approach of managing its facilities,” but, basically, if the cost of keeping unused buildings is only 0.2% of the budget, it seems like a prudent approach, particularly since I’m not at all certain that the OIG can accurately tell which buildings are likely to not be needed.
Agreed. The cost of retaining and maintaining facilities, and the land they are on, is insignificant compared to what it would cost to acquire additional facilities later, if needed, if the assets in the report should be let go, or left to rot, now,
Question: Does NASA, as a government agency, pay property taxes and/or any other expenses on the facilities it operates? I’m wondering if NASA pays any government-imposed operating expenses that could be reduced or eliminated in lieu of a higher (or stable) budget, or to make money available for this deferred facilities maintenance.
NASA does not pay property taxes. Consequently it may be under pressure from states to sell unused property and facilities.
Ahhh. That makes sense. Thanks
Several years ago there was the Stimulus funding, where the government was eagerly looking for “shovel ready” and high priority (deferred??) maintenance. Here in Texas we got some new bathrooms in state parks (thanks, I used them) and the Johnson Space Center replaced roofs in many buildings. Apparently not all roofs needed to be replaced but there was a rush to spend money. So all were replaced. Still – there is a backlog of deferred maintenance in several Centers. Why was that not all taken care of??? Likely we were in too big a hurry to get it obligated.
Because JSC has first call on cross-center-support funding? The real problem is the “rush” to spend money. The biggest sin in government is to leave money “on the table” when the funding period runs out. Not only do you get no credit for saving taxpayer dollars, but your budget for the next year is slashed and your entire organization has egg on its face.
Broken and unused old stuff, huh. They’re just now figuring this out?
http://selenianboondocks.co…
The IG’s report is full of fallacious thinking. It says NASA should get rid of unneeded assets and gives a nod to the high upfront costs associated with separating or reconfiguring utility systems, environmental remediation, and reworking security infrastructure. But it then states that funding these costs is not likely when appropriations are declining. Given all this, it is odd that the IG is critical of NASA centers, like Ames, that have used Enhanced Use Leasing authority to lease underutilized facilities and land. The “federal policy” that the IG refers to that prohibits leasing of facilities that have no future mission use is a recent NASA policy. Maybe this policy is what needs to change. The IG says that these centers should have looked at a disposal alternative more closely even when everybody knows, including the IG, that they cannot afford the high upfront costs to implement a property disposal action. Meanwhile, the IG ignores the substantial lease and cost reimburse revenue flow that EUL leases generate. A recent GAO study reported NASA generating $8M in cash annually under its EUL program –the most of any of the agencies reviewed. These revenues are being applied to badly needed capital projects and offset site-wide infrastructure maintenance costs. Moffett Field, for example, breaks even when lease and other revenues are factored in –but the IG does not mention this. Bottom line: the IG report is a poor piece of analysis that does not let the facts get in the way of its predetermined findings.
Or, there is this take (and I’ll refrain from my opinion of this..article):
http://www.usatoday.com/sto…
Its actually the used “old stuff” in the form of 60 something managers that need to be surplused. There is thinking old and managing old – in old ways, that do 10x the harm of any of the old scientists that are beyond their productive years.