Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 10
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research 3 Support for Fundamental Research at NASA BUDGET TRENDS FOR RESEARCH, FACILITIES, AND EQUIPMENT To assess the status of NASA’s laboratory capabilities and to determine whether they are equipped and maintained to support NASA’s research activities, it is important first to examine the mechanisms for funding the basic research laboratories, including the equipment and support services for those laboratories. The shifts in this funding over time are powerful indicators of the priority placed on the research laboratories in any institution and their likely health. At the first committee meeting, the director of the NASA Headquarters Office of Programs and Institutional Integration presented the funding for fundamental science and engineering research for FY 2005 through FY 2009, with the number for FY 2009 being an estimate. As shown in Table 3.1, NASA R&D funding has been relatively flat, increasing 16.5 percent in then-year dollars over this 5-year period. Several conclusions can be drawn from these data. While the total funding for R&D encompasses roughly half of the total NASA annual budget, the funding for basic research decreased by 23 percent, or $542 million; the funding for applied research decreased by 47 percent, or $913 million; and the funding for development activities increased by 78.7 percent, or $2.75 billion, from FY 2005 through FY 2009. The reduction of $1.455 billion in basic and applied research support over this 5-year period is equivalent to the loss of roughly 1,200 scientists and engineers working on fundamental science projects. In 2005, the combination of basic and applied research funding amounted to 55.4 percent of the total R&D, whereas in 2009 the same combination of basic and applied research amounted to only 31.4 percent of the total R&D budget. Clearly, there has been a significant reduction in basic and applied research funding and a shift toward development funding that more directly and immediately benefits programs and missions. The funding for R&D equipment and facilities for FY 2005 through FY 2009 is shown in Table 3.2. The expenditures on equipment and facilities, both internal and external to NASA, occurred in the three categories of basic, applied, and developmental R&D shown in Table 3.1. The annual expenditure on R&D equipment and facilities averaged $2.15 billion and was rather steady over this period, amounting to approximately 13 percent of NASA’s total annual expenditures. The information provided to the committee made no distinction between the cost of fundamental science and engineering research and on the more engineering-oriented development work. However, the committee learned during visits to the various centers that the majority of these equipment and facility expenditures were for development associated with operations and mission needs rather than basic and applied research. In addition, many of the equipment upgrades and investments in basic and applied research programs required multiple sources of funding due to the inadequate budgets for the lower TRL categories. In FY 2004, after several years of introductory efforts and in conformance with the President’s Management Agenda (PMA), NASA completed implementation of full-cost management, budgeting, accounting and recovery (FCA). The definition of “full cost” can be found in NASA Procedural Requirements, NPR 9420.1,1 but in general the move was intended to provide the agency with the true, 1 NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 9420.1, effective date December 24, 2008, available at http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_9420_0001_&page_name=main.
OCR for page 11
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research TABLE 3.1 NASA Research and Development (R&D) Funding for FY 2005 Through FY 2009 Fiscal Year NASA Total Budget ($ million) R&D Funding ($ million) R&D Share of Total NASA Budget (%) Basic Applied Development Total R&D 2005 16,070 2,386 1,957 3,494 7,837 48.8 2006 16,270 2,299 1,680 5,141 9,120 56.1 2007 16,100 1,786 947 5,576 8,309 51.6 2008 17,372 2,182 561 6,090 8,833 50.9 2009 17,782 1,844 1,044 6,244 9,132 51.4 NOTE: R&D budgets for 2005-2008 are actuals; 2009 is an estimate. SOURCE: Richard Keegan, Office of Programs and Institutional Integration, NASA Headquarters, presentation to the committee on September 8, 2009. TABLE 3.2 NASA Funding for Research and Development (R&D) Equipment and Facilities, FY 2005 Through FY 2009 Fiscal Year Total NASA Budget ($ million) Cos of Expenditures on R&D Facilities and Equipment ($ million) Share of Total Budget (%) 2005 16,070 2,360 14.7 2006 16,270 2,197 13.5 2007 16,100 1,643 10.2 2008 17,372 2,349 13.5 2009 17,782 2,194 12.3 SOURCE: Richard Keegan, Office of Programs and Institutional Integration, NASA Headquarters, presentation to the committee on September 8, 2009. total cost of any program or project. The move was driven by years of complaint from academic and industry researchers that NASA researchers held an unfair advantage in competitive bids for research opportunities, as the salaries of civil-servant scientists were not included and only a small overhead charge on postdoctoral researchers and secretaries was included. As a result of the FCA implementation, any project, whether research-oriented or mission-applicable, would have three cost categories applied, as appropriate. Direct costs are costs that are obviously and physically related to a project at the time that they are incurred, such as direct civil service salaries/benefits/travel and purchased goods and services. Service costs that cannot be specifically and immediately identified but can subsequently be traced or linked are assigned to a pool charge and applied to a project based on usage or consumption. Support services used by research laboratories, such as for technicians, contracted equipment maintenance and repair, and laboratory modifications, would fall into this category. The third category of applied cost is center management and operations (CM&O). CM&O costs are those that cannot be related or traced to a specific project but that benefit all activities. In 2007 NASA reassessed the allocation of such costs at the Headquarters level using a standard rate applied to all projects. Fundamental research projects not immediately related to and supported by a mission project would need to be funded under the CM&O category. Center directors received a CM&O budget to operate their centers to include all administrative support services plus any fundamental research not supported by mission projects. Fundamental research laboratories came into competition for limited dollars with fire protection, public affairs, nonprogram
OCR for page 12
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research costs of facilities, human resources, financial management, security, and other areas. In addition, researchers when submitting proposals for NASA research announcements (NRAs) or announcements of opportunity (AOs) needed to include CM&O and corporate (NASA Headquarters) general and administrative overhead costs as part of their cost proposals. From the perspective of a research leader at a NASA center, the cost of operating a fundamental research laboratory changed drastically following the transition to “full cost.” The total funding needed was now double or triple that before the transition, but the funding available from CM&O budgets and the number of awards and amounts available from competitive Headquarters opportunities did not increase correspondingly. All of this was occurring at a time of stagnant top-line NASA budgets and overall reduced internal NASA support for fundamental research laboratories as a result of a major shift from basic and applied research to more mission-driven developments. It should be mentioned that NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), an FFRDC, did not undergo this transition since overhead was always included in its negotiated contract rates. The immediate impact of “full cost” was therefore less for the JPL research community than the other NASA-center communities, although they experienced the overall reduced support for fundamental research. The committee is not forming a judgment on the merits and demerits of full-cost management. On the positive side, “full cost” provides NASA with the true cost of conducting a research project and enables it to make effective decisions regarding the inception or continuation of projects. “Full cost” also makes competitive opportunities between NASA researchers and academic and industry researchers fair and balanced from a cost standpoint. The latter have always needed to include institution overhead charges into their proposals. The committee is merely reporting on the negative impact of the transition to full-cost management expressed by both NASA researchers and center management during its visits and is noting the subsequent limited and reduced budgets for fundamental research laboratory needs. Over those 5 years (FY 2004 through FY 2009) there was much rearrangement of the budget categories, as shown in Table 3.3. The main overhead costs in the cross-agency support (CAS) category shown in the table include CM&O, headquarters management, and institutional investments. The institutional investment funding includes construction of facilities (CoF),2 which could come from one or more of three sources: the NASA program, the institutional investment account, and third-party funds. In FY 2009 the mission-support funding elements were removed from center program budgets and funded directly from NASA Headquarters. The full-cost elements of civil service labor and travel remain in the center program budgets. Education programs were also removed from the CAS category and funded as a separate account in FY 2009. The NASA funding shown in Table 3.3 was essentially flat over the 3-year period FY 2005 through FY 2007, with a 10 percent increase in the latter 2 years. The budgets shown are actual spending authority, so inflationary labor and price increases experienced over the flat budget years resulted in a decreased purchasing capability to research and mission programs alike. Especially notable in Table 3.3 is the significant overall reduction of 48 percent for aeronautics programs over FY 2005 through FY 2009, which affected both NASA centers and external organizations. This provides a disconnect with the overarching mission of the ARMD, which is to advance U.S. technological leadership in aeronautics in partnership with industry, academia, and other government agencies that conduct aeronautics-related research. Beginning in FY 1999, there was a steady decline in the funding of the aeronautics programs, as shown in Figure 3.1, resulting in a 72 percent decrease over the past decade 1999-2009. In FY 2005, aeronautics programs received 6 percent of the total NASA budget, but by FY 2009, that share had been reduced to only 2.8 percent. This reflects the current funding of approximately $500 million per year, in sharp contrast to the $900 million annual funding experienced some 5 years ago. The research funded within the aeronautics program is primarily TRL 1-3, fundamental research, and raises the question of whether that amount is sufficient to keep U.S. 2 NASA Procedural Requirements 8820.2F, Chapter 1, January 28, 2008, available at http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8820_002F_&page_name=Chapter1.
OCR for page 13
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research aeronautics in the lead internationally, because it constrains the transitioning of TRL 1-3 results to higher TRLs. In most cases the research leads only to the development of multidisciplinary design, analysis, and optimization tools for others to use in moving the research to higher TRLs. The transition to system-level experiments is unaffordable. There are several mechanisms for funding fundamental research programs and the associated laboratory equipment, facilities, and support services. As shown in Figure 3.2, there are two main pathways by which NASA Headquarters might supply funding. One pathway is from one or more project offices, located at various centers that direct funds to research for a specific mission directorate. Each project office can pick and choose from among the centers which center is appropriate for a particular research program. The mission directorates fund targeted work in a technology “pull” manner. Another pathway is the CAS funds that are sent to each NASA center. As mentioned previously, CAS funding includes the CM&O and CoF institutional investment funds, which are distributed at the discretion of the center director. Each center determines how the CM&O funds will be used. For example, GSFC allocates CM&O funds for several investment categories, including bid and proposal (B&P), independent research and development (IRAD), strategic investments, and technical equipment. The GRC does not allocate any CM&O funds for B&P or IRAD. Secondary mechanisms exist for funding facilities, equipment, and support services. One of these mechanisms is reimbursable work with industry and other federal agencies, which can be used to augment and support continued operations in a particular laboratory, allowing it to be more fully utilized and able to maintain technical staff. Another mechanism is to utilize equipment that has been developed through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. A more limited source of research funding is direct funding from Congress. TABLE 3.3 NASA Budget Structure for FY 2005 Through FY 2009 ($ million) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 NASA total budget 16,070 16,270 16,100 17,372 17,782 Exploration capabilities 8,419 6,520 6,144 6,569 — Exploration systems 1,431 — — — — Spaceflight 6,988 — — — — Space operations — 6,520 6,144 6,569 5,765 Science, aeronautics, and exploration 7,620 9,718 9,924 10,770 11,983 Space science 4,019 — — — — Science — 5,243 5,284 5,590 4,503 Exploration systems — 3,049 3,414 4,003 Exploration — — — — 3,505 Biological and physical science 925 — — — — Earth science 1,535 — — — — Aeronautics 962 893 709 623 500 Education programs 179 — — — 169 Cross-agency support (CAS) programs — 533 517 554 3,306 Inspector General 31 32 32 33 34 SOURCE: Richard Keegan, Office of Programs and Institutional Integration, NASA Headquarters, presentation to the committee, September 8, 2009.
OCR for page 14
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research FIGURE 3.1 History of NASA aeronautics funding from 1962 to 2009. SOURCE: Roy V. Harris, Jr., Former Director of Aeronautics, NASA Langley Research Center, “NASA Aeronautics Research 1958-2008; A Brief Program and Funding History with Comments on the Future,” presentation to the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board, December 1, 2008, Washington, D.C. FIGURE 3.2 Sources of funding for fundamental research, laboratories, and equipment at NASA. NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix F. SOURCE: Based on information presented by NASA management.
OCR for page 15
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research The research projects in the TRL 1-3 categories funded under IRAD are highly competitive internal center projects focused on research and technology development including concept formulation and risk-reduction efforts. B&P funds support the preparation of proposals in response to NASA competitive announcements, including instrument and mission-concept development, cost estimates and the preparation of documentation for proposal submissions. Strategic investments support requirements for facilities and equipment for a center to win new business. An example might be the modification of an existing clean room to enable a new processing technique. The technical equipment category supports the maintenance, repair, recertification, and investment in equipment for science and engineering laboratories. The CoF comprises four project types. The Minor Revitalization and Construction Projects type funds projects costing more than $1 million and less than $5 million (in FY 2010). Any construction projects less than $1 million must be funded in another manner. The smaller projects are typically for safety code compliance, security, and institutional and strategic construction projects. Funds for CoF projects come from three other types: Programs (i.e., mission directorates), institutional investment funds, or third parties. The NASA Headquarters Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division leads the review and sets the priority of institutional facility projects.3 Table 3.4 shows the direct CM&O funding of each NASA center from FY 2007 through the proposed budget for FY 2010. The CM&O amounts for 2007 through 2009 are actual program authorized budgets; the 2010 amounts are planned budgets in the May 2009 presidential budget submission. The CM&O budgets for SSC, DFRC, ARC, and KSC are at a notably smaller percentage increase over this period than the other centers. The primary aeronautics research centers, GRC and LaRC, are each supported with about 10 percent of the total NASA CM&O budget and have experienced 20 to 30 percent growth in funding over the past 4 years. An important primary space and Earth science center, GSFC, currently receives about 18 percent of the total budget and has experienced a growth in CM&O funding of 39 percent over the past 4 years. ARC, a research center in both aeronautics and Earth and space science, receives only 8 percent of the total CM&O budget and has experienced only a 7 percent increase over the past 4 years. The CM&O budget for the other main space and Earth science center, JPL, is not included in Table 3.4 because JPL is an FFRDC that supports the equivalent functions through overhead on its contracted funding. TABLE 3.4 Management and Operations Funding of NASA Centers, FY 2007 Through FY 2010 Center 2007Actual ($ million) 2008 Actual ($ million) 2009 Actual ($ million) 2010 Plan ($ million) 2010 Total (%) Share Increase 2007-2010 (%) SSC 50.8 51.3 51.4 52.9 2.5 4.1 DSFC 57.2 62.7 62.5 64 3.1 11.9 ARC 154.3 148.5 151 165 7.9 6.9 GRC 153.9 180.5 184.3 185.4 8.9 20.5 LaRC 174.2 217.8 219.5 225 10.8 29.2 MSFC 252.3 298.5 302.5 308.1 14.8 22.1 KSC 320.3 323.5 330.2 336.7 16.2 5.1 JSC 306.3 365.8 359 371.9 17.8 21.4 GSFC 269.6 356.1 358.3 375.1 18 39.1 Total CM&O 1,739 2,004.7 2,018.7 2,084.1 100 19.8 NOTE: Amounts for FY 2010 are planned budgets in the May 2009 presidential budget submission. Acronyms are defined in Appendix F. SOURCE: Data provided by Financial Division, NASA Headquarters. 3 NPR 8820.2F, January 28, 2008, available at http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8820_ 002F_&page_name=Chapter1.
OCR for page 16
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research ASSESSMENT OF FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, AND MAINTENANCE The committee received a presentation on NASA’s structured methodology for an annual assessment of the DM of its real property.4 NASA currently has 2,477 buildings and 2,262 “other structures” in its real property inventory, containing over 30 million square feet on 360,000 acres and having a CRV of $27.59 billion. This real property is located at 58 sites in the continental United States and 34 sites overseas. The majority of the real property is concentrated at the NASA centers. Approximately 20 percent of these facilities are dedicated to laboratories and associated R&D activities, as distinguished from utility systems, offices, power development and distribution facilities, warehouses, and service space. The CRV of individual NASA centers in FY 2008, including both active and total real properties, is shown in Figure 3.3. Within NASA, some 80 percent of the facilities are older than 40 years, and each year many facility repair jobs that are ranked 5 × 5, meaning that the consequences of a failure (that is, the impact of failure on a mission) are very high (5), and the probability of failure (that is, the likelihood that failure will happen) are very high (also 5), will not be implemented due to inadequate funding. The FY 2009 annual NASA-wide budget for institutional facility repairs is approximately $234 million,5 but it was estimated by the director of the NASA Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division that almost double this budget would be required to deal with all of the high and very high facility repair requirements. At the present rate of critical repairs, there are identified serious facility problems with potentially major adverse impact on missions waiting to happen. Facilities maintenance is the recurring day-to-day work required to preserve facilities (buildings, structures, grounds, utility systems, and collateral equipment, including facility controls and data acquisition systems) in such a condition that they can be used for their designated purpose over an intended service life. It includes the cost of labor, materials, and parts. Maintenance minimizes or corrects wear and tear and thereby forestalls major repairs. Facility maintenance includes preventive maintenance, predictive testing and inspection, grounds care, programmed maintenance, repair, trouble calls, and the replacement of obsolete items. The NASA centers are largely responsible for handling the maintenance of their facilities and equipment through fixed-price bids to external contractors. Those essential facilities maintenance items that should be but cannot be accomplished within an annual budget are placed in a DM category. The DM category does not include new construction, additions, or modifications. It does, however, include unfunded maintenance requirements, repairs, replacement of obsolete items, and CoF repair projects. In determining DM, NASA uses a parametric estimating model that is populated with condition-rating data based on rapid visual assessment of all equipment and facilities. NASA relies on an independent contractor’s annual estimate of the condition of each facility in the real property inventory. The Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board requires federal agencies to report the dollar amounts of DM annually. NASA developed a methodology for evaluating nine different systems (structure; exterior; roofing; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning [HVAC]; electrical; plumbing; conveying; interior; and program support equipment) within any facility to arrive at a Facility Condition Index (FCI) on a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being excellent. Facilities are categorized into 42 types, including such recognizable types as power generation plants, electric substations, HVAC distribution, administrative buildings, and engine and vehicle static test facilities. R&D and test buildings, R&D structures and facilities, and wind tunnels are three of the categories most closely associated with this study. Using the annual physical inspection data described above, each facility receives an FCI rating using the following criteria: 4 Director of Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division, NASA Headquarters, and the Deferred Maintenance Assessment Report-FINAL, October 2009. 5 NASA FY 2008 Budget at http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/FY2008.html.
OCR for page 17
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research FIGURE 3.3 FY 2008 (current) replacement value of facilities at the NASA centers. NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix F. SOURCE: Frank Bellinger, Director of Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division, NASA Headquarters. Excellent, 5. Only normal scheduled maintenance is required. Good, 4. Some minor repairs needed. System normally functions as intended. Fair, 3. More minor repairs and some infrequent larger repairs required. System occasionally is unable to function as intended. Poor, 2. Significant repairs required. Excessive wear and tear clearly visible. System not fully functional as intended. Repair parts not easily obtainable. Does not meet all codes. Nonfunctional, 1. Major repair or replacement required to restore function. Unsafe to use. Nonexistent, 0. Indicates that this system does not exist within a facility. An analysis of the trends in the FCI from FY 2004 to FY 2008 is shown in Table 3.5. In FY 2004 the NASA FCI was 3.7, indicating that NASA facilities were characterized as fairly good, as some minor repairs were typically needed, but some infrequent larger repairs were also required and systems occasionally were unable to function as intended. Over the 5-year period, the FCI degraded slightly, while the DM on these facilities grew from $1.77 billion to $2.46 billion, an increase of 39 percent. The FY 2008 replacement value of NASA active property is approximately $23.6 billion (Figure 3.3), but only $367 million, or approximately 1.5 percent of that value, is spent annually on maintenance and repairs.6 The guideline provided in facilities management literature is 2 to 4 percent of CRV. Therefore, current NASA spending on maintenance and repairs is well below industry-accepted standards. 6 NASA FY 2008 Budget, available at http://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/FY2008.html.
OCR for page 18
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research TABLE 3.5 Trends in Facility Cost Index (FCI), Deferred Maintenance (DM), and Current Replacement Value (CRV; active plus inactive) for the NASA Centers, FY 2004 Through FY 2008 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 FCI (on a scale of 1 to 5) 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.6 DM ($ billion) 1.77 1.90 2.05 2.32 2.46 CRV ($ billion) 22.38 24.35 25.49 26.77 27.59 SOURCE: Frank Bellinger, Director of Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division, NASA Headquarters. The NASA Aeronautics Test Program (ATP) and Strategic Capabilities Asset Program (SCAP) are responsible for sustaining a diverse range of aerospace ground test facilities located at NASA centers. To help understand the current condition and reliability of these facilities and their ability to meet current and future (5-year-horizon) requirements, a study7 was conducted by Jacobs Technology of the current physical condition of the ATP and SCAP facilities. Some 22 facilities were assessed, about half being wind tunnels. The facility assessment findings recommend that more than 800 recapitalization projects be performed over the next 5 years, with a total estimated 5-year cost of approximately $245 million. Approximately 27 percent of the total recommended project costs were considered to be urgent or high priority in that they address high-risk issues that could result in costly failures or injury and place facilities in a nonoperational status within the next 12 months. There were readily identifiable required investment trends in the electrical power, data acquisition, and control system categories across all the NASA centers. This facility condition assessment is complementary to the information contained in the FY 2006 NASA-Wide Standardized Deferred Maintenance Assessment Report; however, because the recommendations were the product of a more thorough engineering assessment at the critical component, system, and facility levels than had been performed for the DM report, the cost of returning these facilities to a safe and reliable condition is much greater than the DM assessment would have determined. In addition to NASA’s not fully assessing the maintenance required, the committee was informed of examples where recent investment in a facility or laboratory was larger than the reported CRV in the DM assessment, adding uncertainty about the level of maintenance funding required because the CRVs of the facilities are in many cases understated. Thus the problem of DM of equipment, facilities, and laboratories supporting research at NASA is more significant than the annual DM assessment would indicate. The committee requested and NASA provided a list of all the facilities in which TRL 1-3 research is being conducted or has been conducted, along with the current replacement values, the DM, and the FCI on each of these laboratory facilities. Table 3.6 summarizes these results. The $6.37 billion current replacement value of the NASA facilities that house TRL 1-3 research is 23 percent of the total NASA CRV. The $0.526 billion of DM on these research facilities is 21 percent of the total NASA DM. From these data it can be deduced that research facilities are maintained at about the same level as the other facilities at NASA. The FCI, however, as stated previously, comprises a rapid visual assessment of equipment and facilities (i.e., it is a drive-by evaluation) and does not include laboratory equipment and specific instruments related to research programs. This is clear from discrepancies between the FCI and DM and the aforementioned Jacobs Technology study and from examples of understated facility CRV. The committee’s extensive review of facilities and laboratories is discussed in the next two chapters. 7 Jacobs Technology, Inc., Facility Assessment Study for Aeronautics Test Program and Shared Capability Asset Program, January 2009.
OCR for page 19
Capabilities for the Future: An Assessment of NASA Laboratories for Basic Research TABLE 3.6 Current Replacement Value (CRV), Deferred Maintenance (DM), and Facility Cost Index (FCI) Characteristics of NASA Laboratory Facilities That Support TRL 1-3 Research in 2009 Center 2009 Laboratory Facilities CRV ($) 2009 Laboratory Facilities DM ($) 2009 Laboratory Facilities FCI (Avg.) LaRC 2,136,803,288 146,129,932 3.68 ARC 1,347,982,515 176,031,866 3.90 GRC 1,123,430,679 93,765,877 3.81 MSFC 720,249,938 59,090,974 3.96 GSFC 530,513,552 32,350,977 3.70 JPL 513,810,284 18,778,436 4.03 Totals 6,372,790,256 526,148,062 NOTE: Acronyms are defined in Appendix F. SOURCE: Frank Bellinger, Director of Facilities Engineering and Real Property Division, NASA Headquarters, “NASA Buildings That Support TRL 1-3 Research,” e-mail to the committee, December 4, 2009.