In the late 1990s, several of the sponsor agencies of the Federal Facilities Council began developing and implementing initiatives and policies related to sustainable development. Guidance related to life-cycle costing and value engineering was recognized as being supportive of sustainable development, in particular when used in the conceptual planning and design phases of acquisition, where decisions are made that substantially effect the ultimate performance of a building over its life cycle. However, specific concerns were raised that when federal agencies apply value engineering in the final stages of design or during construction in response to cost overruns, design features that support sustainable development may be eliminated. The primary objective of this study, therefore, was to develop a framework to show how federal agencies can use value engineering and life-cycle costing to support sustainable development for federal facilities and meet the objectives of Executive Order 13123.

In 1986, the FFC requested that the NRC appoint a committee to examine the field and propose ways by which the POE process could be improved to better serve public and private sector organizations. The resulting report, Post-Occupancy Evaluation Practices in the Building Process: Opportunities for Improvement, proposed a broader view of POEs-from being simply the end phase of a building project to being an integral part of the entire building process. The authoring committee recommended a series of actions related to policy, procedures, and innovative technologies and techniques to achieve that broader view. In 2000, the FFC funded a second study to look at the state of the practice of POEs and lessons-learned programs among federal agencies and in private, public, and academic organizations both here and abroad. The sponsor agencies specifically wanted to determine whether and how information gathered during POE processes could be used to help inform decisions made in the programming, budgeting, design, construction, and operation phases of facility acquisition in a useful and timely way. To complete this study, the FFC commissioned a set of papers by recognized experts in this field, conducted a survey of selected federal agencies with POE programs, and held a forum at the National Academy of Sciences on March 13, 2001, to address these issues. This report is the result of those efforts.

More than 30 federal departments and agencies with a wide range of missions and programs manage large inventories of facilities, also called portfolios. These portfolios range in size from a few hundred to more than a hundred thousand individual structures, buildings, and their supporting infrastructure. They are diverse in terms of facility types, mix of types, and geographic dispersal. For federal senior executives, facilities portfolio-related decisions revolve around the allocation of resources (staff, funding, time) for acquisition, renovation, operation, repair, and disposition of facilities. To make informed decisions, senior executives require information that will allow them to answer such questions as: What facilities do we have? What condition are they in? What facilities are needed to support the organization's missions? This study lays out a framework for developing and evaluating trends in facilities portfolio conditions, investments, and costs and identifies a set of key indicators that can be used to track performance over time. Some of the indicators are currently in use in some federal agencies; others will need to be developed. Table of Contents Front Matter Executive Summary 1 Introduction 2 Facilities Asset Management and Performance Goals 3 Existing Performance Indicators for Federal Facilities Portfolios 4 Additional Performance Indicators for Federal Facilities Portfolios References Appendix A Executive Order Federal Real Property Asset Management Appendix B Biographies of Consultants Appendix C Engineered Management Systems and BCI Appendix D Space Utilization Index

The National Academy of Construction (NAC) has determined that disputes, and their accompanying inefficiencies and costs, constitute a significant problem for the industry. In 2002, the NAC assessed the industry's progress in attacking this problem and determined that although the tools, techniques, and processes for preventing and efficiently resolving disputes are already in place, they are not being widely used. In 2003, the NAC helped to persuade the Center for Construction Industry Studies (CCIS) at the University of Texas and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation to finance and conduct empirical research to develop accurate information about the relative transaction costs of various forms of dispute resolution. In 2004 the NAC teamed with the Federal Facilities Council (FFC) of the National Research Council to sponsor the "Government/Industry Forum on Reducing Construction Costs: Uses of Best Dispute Resolution Practices by Project Owners." The forum was held on September 23, 2004, at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. Speakers and panelists at the forum addressed several topics. Reducing Construction Costs addresses topics such as the root causes of disputes and the impact of disputes on project costs and the economics of the construction industry. A second topic addressed was dispute resolution tools and techniques for preventing, managing, and resolving construction- related disputes. This report documents examples of successful uses of dispute resolution tools and techniques on some high-profile projects, and also provides ways to encourage greater use of dispute resolution tools throughout the industry. This report addresses steps that owners of construction projects (who have the greatest ability to influence how their projects are conducted) should take in order to make their projects more successful.

Although most federal facilities projects are successfully completed (i.e., they reasonably meet the agency's requirements and expectations), the perception is that development of the scope of work for design for these projects is challenging and in some cases poorly performed. Based on this perception, a study was commissioned by the Federal Facilities Council (FFC) of the National Research Council to identify the elements that should be included in a scope of work for design to help ensure that the resulting facility is one that supports the fulfillment of a federal agency's program or mission. Its objectives also included identifying key practices for developing effective scopes of work for design involving new construction or major renovation projects and identifying key practices for matching the scope of work with the acquisition strategy, given a range of project delivery systems and contract methods.

In 1996 the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) 1 enacted Standard Number 6, Accounting for Property, Plant, and Equipment (PP&E), the first government-wide initiative requiring federal agencies to report dollar amounts of deferred maintenance annually. The FASAB has identified four overall objectives in federal financial reporting: budgetary integrity, operating performance, stewardship, and systems and control. FASAB Standard Number 6, as amended, focuses on operating performance and stewardship. The FFC Standing Committee on Operations and Maintenance has prepared this report to identify potential issues that should be considered in any future amendments to the standard and to suggest approaches for resolving them. The committee's intent is to assist the CFO Council, federal agencies, the FASAB, and others as they consider how best to meet the objectives of federal financial reporting for facilities.

Many factors affect the amount of temperature-induced movement that occurs in a building and the extent to which this movement can occur before serious damage develops or extensive maintenance is required. In some cases joints are being omitted where they are needed, creating a risk of structural failures or causing unnecessary operations and maintenance costs. In other cases, expansion joints are being used where they are not required, increasing the initial cost of construction and creating space utilization problems. As of 1974, there were no nationally acceptable procedures for precise determination of the size and the location of expansion joints in buildings. Most designers and federal construction agencies individually adopted and developed guidelines based on experience and rough calculations leading to significant differences in the various guidelines used for locating and sizing expansion joints. In response to this complex problem, Expansion Joints in Buildings: Technical Report No. 65 provides federal agencies with practical procedures for evaluating the need for through-building expansion joints in structural framing systems. The report offers guidelines and criteria to standardize the practice of expansion joints in buildings and decrease problems associated with the misuse of expansions joints. Expansions Joints in Buildings: Technical Report No. 65 also makes notable recommendations concerning expansion, isolation, joints, and the manner in which they permit separate segments of the structural frame to expand and to contract in response to temperature fluctuations without adversely affecting the buildings structural integrity or serviceability. Table of Contents Front Matter I. Introduction II. Recommendations III. Discussion Appendix A: Computer Printout of an Elastic Analysis Appendix B: Temperature Data

Federally owned capital assets include some 500,000 buildings and similar facilities worldwide acquired during 200 years of government operations. Government facilities are used to defend the national interest; conduct foreign policy; house historic, cultural and educational artifacts; pursue research; and provide services to the American public. These buildings and structures project an image of American government at home and abroad, contribute to the architectural and socioeconomic fabric of their communities, and support the organizational and individual performance of federal employees conducting the business of government . Federal facilities embody significant investments and resources and therefore constitute a portfolio of public assets. At least 30 separate agencies manage these facilities. As stewards of this public investment, federal facilities program managers face a number of challenges. In the 1990s Congress and the Executive Branch took a number of initiatives to improve capital asset decision making in the federal government. These include enacting the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and a series of federal financial accounting standards; developing the Capital Programming Guide (1997); and appointing the President's Commission to Study Capital Budgeting (1997). Senior and mid-level agency officials are now seeking ways to implement these initiatives efficiently and effectively. The Federal Facilities Council (FFC) sponsored a conference entitled "Capital Asset Management: Tools and Strategies For Decision Making" to highlight strategies and ideas for capital asset management so that federal and other public agencies can improve decision making for facilities investment. Held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C., on September 13, 2000, the conference featured speakers from the public, non-profit, and private sectors. Capital Asset Management: Tools and Strategies For Decision Making: Conference Proceedings summarizes the presentations made at that conference. The speakers focused on trends and best practices in capital budgeting; capital asset decision making processes in three federal agencies; building a case for capital reinvestment; and new tools for federal agencies. Online resources referred to by the speakers are listed in Appendix A. Appendix B contains the speakers' biographies. Table of Contents Front Matter 1 Introduction 2 Trends and Best Practices in Capital Budgeting 3 Capital Asset Decision Making in Three Federal Agencies 4 Building a Case for Capital Reinvestment 5 New Tools for Federal Agencies Appendix A Online Resources Appendix B Speakers' Biographies