NASA OIG: NASA’s Real Property Master Planning Efforts
“NASA’s development of the Agency’s first integrated master plan is a positive step toward better managing its diverse real property assets. However, we found deficiencies within the individual Center master plans the Agency is using to develop the integrated Agency plan that may limit the Plan’s usefulness for making strategic real property decisions. Specifically, we found that NASA is developing its initial master plan based on Center master plans that (1) were developed using funding assumptions for the recapitalization program that are no longer realistic and (2) are missing essential information needed to make objective Agency-wide real property decisions. In addition, 5 of the 10 Centers did not develop master plans to reduce their real property footprint in accordance with Agency goals because of uncertain mission requirements.”
I still think this is much ado about nothing. Programs change with time, so it may not be worthwhile to put a lot of effort into a complicated master plan. Why doesn’t the IG study the abysmal problem of technical contract awards by nontechnical “contracting officers” based on arbitrary criteria with little to do with real competence, complicated masses of small businesses with duplicate management, artificial companies created to win contracts with no real experience or track record, and the contracting out of operations that could be better done in-house, i.e. most unique operations and R&D. Hey, anybody can quote an unrealistic figure, win, cut staff, and complain to NASA that anything they need done requires additional funding. In some cases the technical proposal evaluators (the people who are on the hook to get the actual work done) give reasonable advice on the best proposal and are ignored.
Master Plans are a snapshot in time – and the people writing them know that. Impossible to plan to a moving funding target.