|Program Title||CDC: Buildings and Facilities|
|Department Name||Dept of Health & Human Service|
|Agency/Bureau Name||Centers for Disease Control and Prevention|
Capital Assets and Service Acquisition Program
|Assessment Section Scores||
|Program Funding Level
|Year Began||Improvement Plan||Status||Comments|
The program will explicitly tie budget requests to the accomplishment of annual and long-term goals and will present resource needs more completely and transparently.
|Action taken, but not completed||Improvements to CDC??s budget and performance planning tool include streamlining processes, better aligning project planning across the agency, restructuring project classification variables, and enhancing IT system performance. The system provides for execution and management of projects by giving users the ability to update progress against milestones, provide evidence of accomplishments and results, monitor spending versus budget, and identify risks and develop mitigation strategies.|
|Year Began||Improvement Plan||Status||Comments|
CDC's Buildings and Facilities program will refine the newly adopted long-term measure and develop baselines, ambitious targets and timeframes.
|Completed||CDC worked with HHS to try to establish and verify the basis for a long-term performance measure. Phases I and II were completed. CDC met with HHS in Fall 2005 to discuss a working model and determine its potential use as a metric. Based on the outcome of the meeting, CDC determined it cannot operationalize a practical model that has useful predictive value where scientific output is expressed as a function of facilities investment. The program will continue to track its other PART measures.|
Measure: Facility-specific impact on program ability to meet missions for each new construction in output, expansion of research programs and techniques, agency/researcher productivity, reduction in inefficient use of time, other. (Baseline in 2006).
Explanation:The purpose of this measure is to capture the impact of the newly constructed facilities on the agency's ability to carry out its mission. The program will develop a pilot for at least one facility in FY 2004 and FY 2005 to test measurement of program outcomes and will begin to set a baseline by FY 2006.
Measure: Aggregate of scores for capital projects rated on scope, schedule, budget and quality out of 100.
Explanation:This measure identifies four components of project performance and assigns a weighted rating to each component (35%, 15%, 35%, 15%, respectively, with scope and budget given a higher priority). The quality component is measured as pre-occupancy and post-occupancy. Post-occupancy ratings will replace the pre-occupancy ratings once complete. The combined results identify the overall project performance of each construction project. The summary measure will calculate a combined score of all facilities completed or underway in a given year.The buildings and facilities program tracks the aggregate scores for capital projects to most accurately assess successful performance and use of appropriated funds. The scope component will identify the predefined project needs; the schedule component will reflect the critical milestone dates; the cost component will establish the approved project budget; and the quality component will incorporate the scoring reflecting the use of appropriate building standards and codes. This goal is ambitious because in most years in order to meet the goal, the program cannot allow more than one project to not meet its target.
Measure: Percent of laboratorians in NCID and NCEH, respectively, in CDC standard space
Explanation:This measure tracks progress of placing laboratorians from two major operating divisions in space that meets CDC standards for biosafety, CDC design, space planning, Accreditation of laboratory animal care and HHS utilization rate policy.
Measure: Scheduled work orders and repair maintenance.
Explanation:This measure tracks the percentage of maintenance projects that are scheduled to maintain the facility and the percentage that are needed to repair a non-functioning or faulty system. Ideally all maintenance projects are scheduled and facilities are better protected.
Measure: Energy and water reduction.
Explanation:This measure tracks the program's performance against meeting energy and water consumption goals set by EPAct '05 and E.O 13423. CDC is placing considerable emphasis on energy efficient design for its new labs, and this may result in lower future consumption. However, this measure remains ambitious because CDC may expect somewhat higher energy usage through the end of the projected construction period (FY 2009) as some older labs remain in service combined with additional electrical usage resulting from actual construction activities. However, as older buildings are taken out of service and new construction is completed, energy use per square foot will improve.
Measure: Deliver leased space at a percentage below Atlanta's sub-market rate
Explanation:This measure tracks how well the program negotiates leases at a favorable cost to the government, as compared to rates for the Atlanta sub-market published in Black's Guide.
|Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design|
Is the program purpose clear?
Explanation: The Buildings and Facilities activities at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention within the Department of Health and Human Services has a clear program purpose shared by interested parties to oversee the construction of new facilities and maintain leased space for CDC employees and contractors in cost-effective manner. This purpose is consistent with authorizing legislation. The program works to ensure CDC has adequate facilities and equipment to carry out its mission that are safe for workers and the community and are designed and operated responsibly to reduce consumption of resources and that public investments in these facilities are protected through effective maintenance and operations. Core elements include master planning, project delivery, securing of adequate and safe facilities, ensuring effective and efficient maintenance and operations, managing energy consumption and optimizing resources.
Evidence: The program purpose is consistent with mission statements and agency design and construction reference guidelines. The program's primary construction authorization is Section 319D of the Public Health Service Act. Work is carried out through the Facilities Planning and Management Office at CDC. In FY 2003, Buildings and Facilities capital construction funding was $241 million funded through the CDC Buildings and Facilities appropriation, Repairs and Improvements was $18.8 million, funded through the CDC Buildings and Facilities appropriation. In addition, there are six primary activities that are funded through centrally collected contributions from CDC program activities, including $37 million for operating lease, $18 million for overhead, $13 million for maintenance contracts, $8 million for utilities, $6 million for capital leases and $2 million for other leases. In addition, a smaller portion is expended for direct Repairs and Improvements and maintenance contracts by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?
Explanation: The program does address a specific interest, problem or need to provide effective space for CDC. Some CDC facilities were constructed over 50 years ago and some had been designed to be temporary structures that had long extended their intended life cycle. The program also addresses the need to managed leasing contracts for a significant portion of the agency workforce and maintain owned space in good working order through maintenance contracts and special repairs and improvements. The program also addresses the problem of efficiency in water and energy usage.
Evidence: The program's portfolio in 2004 includes 3.75 million gross square feet of owned space and 480 land acres and 2.6 million rentable square feet of leased space. CDC's workforce occupies 23 leased offices at a cost of over $20 million per year. As of 2004, the agency estimates that 64 percent of projects in the facilities master plan are underway; 36 percent of infectious disease laboratorians at CDC and 42 percent of environmental health laboratorians at CDC are in standard space that adheres to CDC standards on density, security, codes and other factors. The program is targeting a repair and improvement budget of between two and four percent of current replacement value. The program is targeting energy reduction goals of 20 percent and water reduction goals of 15 percent. A maintenance master plan obtained by contract identified numerous project need areas.
Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?
Explanation: The National Institutes of Health, Indian Health Service and other federal agencies have buildings and facilities programs to construct facilities to support their missions, but the program is not redundant of these other federal activities or of state, local or private efforts. The program does work with other federal entities, such as the General Services Administration on rental payments, and with private entitities, such as for the design and construction of new facilities.
Evidence: There are multiple private construction and leasing firms that the agency utilizes. While there are other federal entities within the Department of Health and Human Services that provide a similar function for other agencies, the program is focused on the facility needs of CDC and is not directly duplicative. The Department's asset management plan will provide project level analyses of lease versus construction alternatives. On a project by project basis, the program has begun to more thoroughly evaluate the comparison between constructing new federal space and leasing private space. The HHS capital investment review board will include efforts to help ensure there are no redundancies in construction, which can also include continuity of operations plans.
Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?
Explanation: The program is free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness as outlined in the guidance for this question. There are improvements needed and actions planned and underway to improve the program's design, but there is no evidence that a different mechanism would be more effective in meeting the program's purpose.
Evidence: Newly implemented project approval agreements provide clear lines of authority to improve oversight. A project management system, the Integrated Facility Mangement Information System, is being developed to resolve business plan, tracking and oversight related elements of the program design.
Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?
Explanation: The program is effectively targeted so that reach intended beneficiaries and address the program purpose directly and through a priority setting process. For Repairs and Improvements, the program sets a priority on projects related to safety, disabilities and maintenance that would affect the ability of the program to carry out the mission. The program obtains priority rankings from affected programs in the agency and conducts a systematic review with an internal board to set priorities for large and small projects. For construction, the program has developed a Master Plan of construction projects in the Atlanta area. The plan was developed with the input of program managers from the agency's centers, institutes and offices and senior management from CDC.
Evidence: Evidence includes documentation of the R&A project approval process. From the Master Plan, the program establishes a list of projects and works with senior management to propose priority construction. The program places laboratory construction needs as a higher priority because these facilities cannot be acquired privately. As is discussed further below, this process will be codified further through the asset business plans. The review committee is chaired by the agency's Chief Operating Officer who reports to the CDC Director. When a project is proposed that is not on the list, the program evaluates the proposal on the basis of cost and goals. HHS engages in a similar process for all projects in excess of $3 million. Projects in excess of $10 million are referred to an HHS council.
|Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design||Score||100%|
|Section 2 - Strategic Planning|
Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?
Explanation: The program adopted a long-term outcome measure to capture the program's impact on the agency's ability to carry out its mission. The measure is the summary of facility-specific findings that indicate outcomes of the construction. These outcomes are the anticipated end result of a well-designed and constructed facility that meets CDC's standards. Examples of outcomes that can be used include quantified changes in program output, expansion of research programs and techniques, quantified changes in the efficiency of the building occupants, such as for laboratory researchers, and reduction in down time associated with less efficient facilities.
Evidence: The new measure is the facility-specific impact on the ability of CDC's programs to meet program missions for each new construction as measured by elements such as quantified changes in program output, expansion of research programs and techniques, quantified changes in the efficiency of the building occupants, such as for laboratory researchers, and reduction in down time associated with less efficient facilities.
Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?
Explanation: The program adopted a long-term outcome performance measure, but does not have the associated baselines or targets. The program will develop a pilot for at least one facility during FY 2004 and FY 2005 to test measurement of program outcomes and will begin to set a baseline for the full measure by FY 2006. When baselines and targets are adopted for a new long-term outcome measure, the response to this question will change.
Evidence: A baseline and targets are not yet available. Targets may be established that provide summary indicators of how well a facility met intended outcomes from the program perspective. The facility specific targets should be established early in the design and construction process, when possible, to facilitate establishment of the baseline and to better capture the purpose and design of each facility up front in the performance measures.
Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?
Explanation: The program adopted new annual performance measures based on metrics used internally and through the process of this assessment. The program is working to develop a measure of how the program meets scope/budget targets that will be weighted according to the size and complexity of each project. The program includes an efficiency measure of energy and water use.
Evidence: Evidence includes the program's annual GPRA plan and report and key performance indicators from the Facilities Management Planning Office. Annual measures include how well the program meets cost and scope targets as compared to the approved plan, how well the program meets project milestones, water and energy conservation goals, competitive leasing, schedule maintenance.
Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?
Explanation: The program adopted targets for newly developed annual measures.
Evidence: The target for the combined project scope, schedule, budget and quality measure is 90% out of 100%. The .
Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?
Explanation: Program partners commit to and work toward the overall goals of the program. For new construction, leases and maintenance, the program relies on contracts and includes detailed performance objectives that need to be met by program contractors. The construction progress schedules are used for making payment and include specific deliverables with timetables. The program's internal partners within the agency commit to the goals of the program through participation in planning efforts and input in design, especially for the laboratory facilties.
Evidence: The program uses indefinite delivery and indefinite quantity task order contracts for design and construction services. Each contract has project officer(s) in the program that manage the task orders. The program works closely with program areas that will use the facilities to be constructed in all aspects of design and planning.
Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?
Explanation: The program has not conducted comprehensive evaluations of program activities since the inception of the CDC facilities master plan (described in Section I of this assessment), but has supported sufficient evaluations of program processes and specific projects as needed to fill gaps in performance that meet standards for independence, scope and quality for this question.
Evidence: The program supported a summary of costs and benefits for Atlanta capital improvement projects by KPMG in 2001. The program supported a facility assessment study for maintenance on contact by private firms lead by C.H. Guernsey & Company to identify deficiencies within the architectural, mechanical, electrical, elevator, life safety, and resource allocation areas of the main campus. The program is supporting a review of office organization and data management by Bearing Point. A June 2003 evaluation of leasing costs and practices was conducted by Bearing Point that identified multiple cost reduction opportunities. The program has supported facility energy audits for 95% of all CDC facilities. The program contracted a design and construction cost control system report in January 2002 on cost control procedures and recommendations for improvements.
Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?
Explanation: The program's budget requests specify which projects will be initiated and completed with the requested level of resources, but resource needs have not been presented in a complete and transparent manner. The program has made progress in this area. The agency is working to integrate budget and performance for terrorism projects through IRIS.
Evidence: Evidence includes the program's budget justification submissions to OMB and the Congress. These documents provide budget and schedule information by project, but do not tie to annual and long-term performance goals. The effects of budget decisions on specific performance levels beyond whether or not a project is funded are not clear.
Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?
Explanation: The program is working to develop baselines, targets and a methodology for a new long-term outcome measure. A new methodology for tracking this measure will need to be developed. The program will develop a pilot for at least one facility during FY 2004 and FY 2005 to test measurement of program outcomes and will begin to set a baseline for the full measure by FY 2006. The Department is initiating a new process to improve the presentation of resource needs in the apportionments and budget and planning documents, which is expected to help with budget and performance integration by providing additional and more developed information on what would be accomplished at a specific budget level. The agency's Future's Initiative can improve strategic planning and is focused on orientating the agency toward having a measurable impact. The program is operating from new space utilization rates set by the Department. The program is continuing to explore the use of design first approaches to improve the projection of cost and schedule information prior to the initiation of construction.
Evidence: The program is preparing Asset Business Plans for major construction projects exceeding $10 million to begin in FY 2004. The plans will contain tools for analyzing alternatives at the project level that include cost, schedule and risk. The program is looking at alternative delivering systems beginning this year for laboratory construction. For design, the program does utilize consultants from the US Army Corps of Engineers to help evaluate alternatives in design for cost effectiveness. The program is developing a business enterprise system to improve the tracking of facilities management information. The program will fully implement the Integrated Facility Management System from FY 2004 to FY 2006. The program has initiated a customer satisfaction survey to identify service gaps. Information on the Future's Initiative can be found at www.cdc.gov/futures. The program contracted a maintenance master plan by C.H. Guernsey & Company to identify and address deficiencies.
Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals and used the results to guide the resulting activity?
Explanation: The program has recently conducted more analyses of alternatives that include trade-offs between costs, schedule and risk for construction projects. The program began considering alternatives for laboratory construction in 2003 and for office buildings in 1996. The analyses consider the 30 year cost to the government. These studies have generally concluded there are substantially lower costs to direct appropriation construction compared to longterm leasing from operating leases and operating leasing using a mixture of debt and equity. The program plans to prepare Asset Business Plans for all construction projects exceeding $10 million. The program has also conducted A-76 competitive sourcing studies.
Evidence: The program has conducted studies that considered taking no action, pursuing direct construction, pursuing a lease purchase, and pursuing a building purchase for buildings 106, 107 and 108 through the CDC Chamblee Federal center proposal. The program also conducted a general Atlanta capital improvement project summary of costs and benefits for all major buildings. The program has developed asset business plans for buildings 23, 24 and 106 in 2003 and buildings 107 and 108 in 2004 that also weighed acquisition alternatives. The program contracted with KPMG on an analysis and comparison of the costs and benefits of capital projects through straight lease, direct appropriation, or lease purchase and contracted with Harold A. Dawson Co., Inc. on options for the Chamblee campus. The program has reviewed the impact of design build delivery versus the existing construction manager approach. The program has worked with Jacobs Engineering Group on design-build considerations more broadly.
|Section 2 - Strategic Planning||Score||78%|
|Section 3 - Program Management|
Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?
Explanation: The program regularly collects timely and credible performance information, including information from contractors and within the agency, and uses it to manage the program and improve performance. The program includes earned value analyses in the asset business plans for new construction and tracks whether the project is on schedule and within budget.
Evidence: The program tracks satisfaction of facilities among agency program managers by year on factors that include overall service, technical assistance and guidance, communication, staff knowledge and problem solving abilities and uses survey findings to guide program management. The program contracts numerous studies on construction and maintenance.
Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?
Explanation: Program's managers are accountable for the quality and progress of the program mission, and will now be held more directly accountable for cost, schedule and performance results. Managers previously had not been held accountable directly through formal and explicit mechanisms. The Department has begun to require all projects above an established threshold to identify accountable individuals for each project beginning in FY 2006. The program will begin using this new procedure for projects in FY 2004 and FY 2005. The agency is also adding performance measures to employee evaluations more broadly. Project contractors are held accountable through detailed contract deliverables and other mechanisms. An increase in construction costs over the initial budget is not a basis for claim unless caused by a change in the approved scope of work. Funding limitations in the contract specify steps that are to be taken to adjust the project to fit within the limitation. Changes require written authorization by the contracting officer.
Evidence: Evidence includes contract exerpts for construction, maintenance and leases and March 2004 documentation from the Department on the new facility project approval policy. The policy requirs officials from the program and the department to enter into agreements for the requirements, budget, scope and schedule of projects. The agreements also identify milestones, such as completion of design, construction, activation and operation. The agreements are signed by the project managers, project director and board member. The agreement is required for construction and improvement projects above $1 million and repair projects above $3 million. Approval authority in the department is delegated to the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Facilities Management and Policy. Projects above the $1 million and $3 million thresholds but below $10 million each can be approved by the deputy assistant secretary. Projects above $10 million go for review by the HHS Capital Investment Review Board. Other projects approved by the Board include land acquisitions, significant and department wide investments.
Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?
Explanation: Funds for Repairs and Improvements are obligated in a timely manner. Funds for construction are multi-year funds and may be carried over into a subsequent fiscal year, but the agency works to ensure funds for construction are obligated in a timely manner. The program does not support grants and the agency designates the program as a low risk for improper payments. There are no A-133 audits. These funds are spent on their intended purpose.
Evidence: Evidence includes apportionment documents, obligation reports from TOPS, and budget submissions. Financial payments are generally initiated by submission of vouchers by contractors assigned to a project. Project officers review and certify vouchers and contractr specialists review the vouchers for rates and documentation. A desk review is conducted to compare payments to calculated allowable contract amounts before closeout of the contract to determine whether final payment needs to be adjusted or collections are needed. An internal review has found obligations have been properly requested and approved and that disbursements were made for buildings and facilities related expenditures. The agency is also conducting reviews of the accounting and recording of land and buildings.
Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?
Explanation: The program does have procedures to measure and improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. The program also conducted an A-76 competitive sourcing study. The program develops asset business plans for new construction projects. The program produces value engineering reports on construction projects to identify potential cost savings, simplify construction, operation and maintenance by developing alternative design ideas. The program has energy performance contracts for 60% of agency facilities, though the program pays utilities at only 1% of total facilities and leased spaces do not address energy efficiency. The agency does not have Energy Star buildings or highly efficient utilities systems.
Evidence: The agency consolidated information technology services and is consolidating budget execution, travel processing, training and graphics and has delayed to no more than four management levels. The agency now has a supervisory ratio of one to ten, up from one to seven at the end of FY 2002. The agency is conducting competitive sourcing studies on or has converted over 460 FTEs. The agency has used FedBizOpps to post all contracts electronically. The agency is reviewing migration to two enterprise grant management systems. A value engineering report for one facility identified over 40 alternative design and other recommendations that could reportedly save over $4 million. Examples include alternative materials
Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?
Explanation: The program does collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs within the agency. The program conducted a customer satisfaction survey of program managers in the agency in March 2004 focused on overall customer satisfaction, general response time, and identification of areas that should be targeted for improvement. Three quarters of current leased space expenditures are for leases obtained through the General Services Administration, though a review by Bearing Point recommends alternatives. The program maintains a reimbursable agreement with EPA and the Indian Health Service for facilities space. The program also works with the Department on improvements in facilities planning and with Emory University and the surrounding community on area growth considerations.
Evidence: The program's customer satisfaction survey indicates overall satisfaction with the program among program managers across the agency with an interest and/or direct involvement in facilities management.
Does the program use strong financial management practices?
Explanation: The FY 2002 report noted reportable conditions relating to information systems; the internal controls over preparation, analysis and monitoring of financial information, including manually intensive procedures; reimbursable agreements; and grants accounting and oversight. None of the reportable conditions are considered material internal control weaknesses. While CDC is taking steps, these weakness have not yet been resolved. GAO reported the agency's financial management capacity systems and procedures were insufficiently developed to address the agency's mission and budget growth. CDC has actively addressed key areas. CDC automated reimbursable billings, enhanced year end closing transactions and implemented a new indirect cost methodology. CDC is also addressing staffing needs, including core accounting competencies, professional staff recruitment, financial systems, training and customer service. The program uses the Integrated Resource Information System to adminster and track funding.
Evidence: An independent auditor's report in Section IV of the FY 2003 HHS Performance and Accountability Report concludes the CDC/ATSDR central financial system lacks the ability to generate financial statements, trian balance and financial statements need to be created offline, which is manually intensive, inefficient and increases the risk of error. A December 2003 report by the OIG (A-04-02-08001) noted the agency had not implemented a system to allocate indirect costs until FY 2003, but found the new system to be a significant improvement for equity and accuracy. The OIG recommends CDC periodically review indirect costing methods. Indirect costs cover core business processes and centrally managed services. CDC has received five consecutive unqualified opinions. CDC issued 64 duplicate or erroneous payments in FY 2002, or 0.042% of all payments and has a 97% compliance rate for prompt payments. Also GAO-01-40, November 2000.
Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?
Explanation: The remaining deficiency noted in this section is the financial management practices. The program is taking multiple steps to improve management and correct these specific deficiences. The program contracted with Bearing Point to improve organization and operations. The program is establishing the Integrated Facilities Management System, a new consolidated database to improve data management and communications. The agency is extending the incorporation of performance measures into employee evaluations and work contracts. The agency is also putting considerable effort into setting priorities and reorganizing operations through the Future's Initiative. The initiative has as one of the areas of focus to improve CDC's business practices. The agency has also taken numerous steps to improve the financial management system and oversight of resources. The agency is extending the incorporation of performance measures into employee evaluations and work contracts.
Evidence: The program received a draft report from Bearing Point in March 2004. Management changes at the agency level were also documented in a January 2004 GAO report (04-219). The agency is also putting considerable effort into setting priorities and reorganizing operations through the Future's Initiative. The initiative has as one of the areas of focus to improve CDC's business practices. The FY 2003 PAR cites improvements in preparing financial statements.
Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?
Explanation: The program is currently managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, performance characteristics and goals early in the approval process. As is described above, a new process is also being implemented at the agency for projects beginning in 2004 to clearly articulate characteristics, deliverables and goals. The program manages construction contracts through detailed deliverables that are used for day to day management decisions. These new procedures are designed to prevent reoccurence of when the program has changed the scope of specific projects and announced the inclusion of meaningful aspects of a project to the department and OMB after the project was well underway.
Evidence: Evidence includes contracts and associated deliverables and milestones, new project approval procedures, project development studies with cost statements and project characteristics. The program maintains weekly activity reports to monitor progress. The program uses space standards for laboratories and offices that inform design and construction.
|Section 3 - Program Management||Score||88%|
|Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability|
Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?
Explanation: The program is adopting a new long-term outcome measure that meets the criteria of this assessment, but does not yet have a completed pilot of a facility or baseline and targets. When baselines and targets are adopted, the response to this question can change.
Evidence: Evidence includes the program's annual GPRA plan and report and key performance indicators from the Facilities Management Planning Office.
Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?
Explanation: The program receives a large extent because the program has data for all but one of the annual measures that indicate the program is making progress. The program does not have data for the project scope, schedule, budget and quality measure, but does have data on project milestones met from 2000 to 2004 of 100%, 86%, 75%, 88%, 83%.
Evidence: Evidence includes key performance indicators from the Facilities Management Planning Office. The program reduced energy consumption by 19% (20% target) and water by 8% (15% target), met most targets for moving scientists into standard work space for NCID and NCEH, is meeting scheduled maintenance goals and has made some progress on meeting cost of lease targets and milestones.
Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?
Explanation: The program has maintained an average lease rate for CDC facilities below the published sub-market rate for Atlanta in Black's Guide. A Bearing Point evaluation found rent, maintenance and utilities costs decreased from 2001 to 2002 but increased in 2003 due to lease costs. Additional data on improvements in construction cost efficiencies gained through changes to the program's procedures and approaches are also needed.
Evidence: The program maintained rental rates of just over $19 per rentable square foot compared to over $20 of published sub-market rates from Black's Guide in 2002 and 2003. The program had a Btu/gross square foot rate of energy usage for standard buildings of 325,095 in FY 1985 and 243,543 in FY 2003, a reduction of 25%. Use for industrial and laboratory facilities declined 19% from 1990. The program attributes part of the current usage to the actual construction of new facilities. Fuel oil consumption has declined 27% from FY 2002. Water usage declined 8% since FY 2002.
Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?
Explanation: The National Institutes of Health, Indian Health Service and other federal agencies have buildings and facilities programs to construct facilities to support their missions. A comparison has not been conducted. There would be technical limitations, but such a comparison would not necessarily be too inherently difficult or costly as described in the guidance for this question and could be pursued.
Evidence: While there are other federal entities within the Department of Health and Human Services that provide a similar function for other agencies, there is insufficient evidence to draw a full comparison between the activities carried out by the facilities program at CDC and other related programs. The program has a unique focus on the facility needs of CDC, including the construction of laboratories that fulfill a very specific purpose. While some comparisons may be drawn over time with facility construction through other divisions in the Department, particularly through the National Institutes of Health, there is insufficient evidence at this time to compare this program to other programs with a similar purpose and goals.
Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?
Explanation: The program receives a small extent because the program has evidence of impact from targeted evaluations, but there are no comprehensive evaluations of the program that indicate the program is effective and achieving results, such as an evaluation from the General Accounting Office.
Evidence: Bearing Point found the program's purhcase of gas and electricity on the open market at a negotiated rate generates savings of 42% off the current government rate. The report noted a lack of policies and procedures governing moves and move requests and the high telecommunications ($8 million in FY 2003) and other costs associated with multiple moves and recommended a formal infrastructure management plan. An environmental audit from 2002 cited multiple findings. CDC is in the process of addressing the findings, many of which have been remediated and many of which are open.
Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?
Explanation: The program received a small extent because it has exceeded budgeted costs on construction projects, but met most of the key project milestones on schedule according to the schedule of Atlanta capital projects. Part of the cost and scope changes are attributable to new demands associated with bioterrorism preparedness and facility security. Changes in cost and scope were ultimately approved and apportioned following review. The program has also completed the majority of repair and improvement projects within average cycle times in most years.
Evidence: Evidence includes the program's metric for Atlanta capital projects annual measurement of key milestones, updated to April 6, 2004. Evidence on the repairs and improvements cycle times is also provided.
|Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability||Score||33%|