|Program Title||Smithsonian Institution Operations and Maintenance|
|Department Name||Smithsonian Institution|
|Agency/Bureau Name||Smithsonian Institution|
Direct Federal Program
|Assessment Section Scores||
|Program Funding Level
|Year Began||Improvement Plan||Status||Comments|
Enhance the utility of the Facility Condition Index (FCI) process by incorporating performance measures to improve the accuracy of the Plant Replacement Value and to use the FCI in the distribution of resources to the most critical needs.
|Action taken, but not completed||SI established tentative targets for 2008 and 2009 based on expected funding levels in the Facilities Maintenance program.|
Implement the Federal Real Property Council Guidance Management, as appropriate for the Smithsonian Institution.
|Action taken, but not completed||Process refined and SI is implementing the Federal Real Property Council guidance that is appropriate for the Institution.|
|Year Began||Improvement Plan||Status||Comments|
Measure: Reduction of the deferred maintenance backlog (based on FCI).
Explanation:This measure is a proxy for an outcome measure, since reducing the backlog enables the Institution to better accomplish its mission. The current age of the Smithsonian buildings and systems results in a significant need for revitalization and/or replacement and have, therefore, generated a large backlog of maintenance. By replacing worn-out systems with more efficient ones and continually improving on maintenance practices, SI can provide safe, secure, and quality facilities for our collections, visitors, and staff. Annual SI-wide aggregate Facilities Condition Index (FCI) as measured by [1- ($deferred maintenance/$plant replacement value)] *100. Covers all mission essential facilities and infrastructure and shows progress against reducing the deferred maintenance backlog (industry standard is above 90%).
Measure: Score, based on an Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers benchmark standard for cleanliness, on the appearance level of SI facilities (on a scale of 1 for best to 5 for worst).
Explanation:Improve the appearance (including cleanliness) of SI facilities to the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers (APPA) level 2 ("Ordinary Tidiness") benchmark standard for educational facilities [scale is 1 for best condition ("Orderly Spotlessness") to 5 for worst("Unkempt Neglect")]. The level 2 standard will ensure that the inside of the buildings' floors, vertical surfaces, washrooms, and trash containers are fresh, clean, and odor-free. Also, supplies are adequately stocked and cleaning equipment is operable.
Measure: Score, based on an Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers benchmark standard for facilities, of the level of maintenance provided to SI facilities (on a scale of 1 for best to 5 for worst).
Explanation:Improve the maintenance of SI facilities to the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers (APPA) level 2 ("Comprehensive Stewardship") benchmark standard for facilities [scale 1 for best condition ("Showpiece Facility" to 5 for worst ("Crisis Response")]. The level 2 standard will ensure that equipment and building components are in operating condition; that sufficient staffing is in place to respond to maintenance calls in a timely manner; and that electrical and mechanical systems are rountinely upgraded.
Measure: Percent of time that temperature and humidity levels are within the target range in SI buildings.
Explanation:Essential to maintain proper temperature and humidity levels to protect and preserve the national collections.
Measure: Customer satisfaction level
Explanation:Customer satisfaction levels will be above 98% for the fiscal year. This measure is based on survey responses from Smithsonian employees who request service from facilities maintenance and operations.
Measure: Reduction of the energy consumption used in SI facilities (expressed in terms of BTU/GSF).
Explanation:Energy consumption used is the annual energy consumption divided by facility area and is expressed in British Thermal Units per gross-square-foot (BTU/GSF). Targets reflect the new 3% annual reduction goal established in January 2007 by Executive Order 13423. By reducing energy consumption used an agency improves energy efficiency and reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
|Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design|
Is the program purpose clear?
Explanation: Over its history, the Smithsonian Institution (SI) has remained consistent to its mission, "the increase and diffusion of knowledge." The SI's facilities operations and maintenance (O&M) program has a well-defined purpose as expressed in a wide array of documents and is closely linked to SI goals, objectives, and the overall SI mission. The program's purpose is to support all operational and maintenance activities that are related to the physical infrastructure of the SI.
Evidence: Enabling legislation (20 USC Section 53a); FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request; SI Annual Performance Plan (FY 2008); "Programme of Organization" for the SI, 1847.
Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?
Explanation: The SI is the principal repository of the nation's collective memory and is the world's largest museum and research complex. As prudent stewards of vast collections and exhibits, the SI has an obligation to the nation to maintain buildings and infrastructure at a level expected by the public. The SI is focused on addressing the current poor condition of SI facilities and elevating them to a standard worthy of the priceless exhibits and artifacts entrusted to the Institution's care. The goals and purpose of the Facilities O&M program are specifically oriented to this end, and provide a vehicle for supporting the SI mission. The current age of the Smithsonian buildings and systems results in a significant need for revitalization and/or replacement and have, therefore, generated a large backlog of maintenance. By replacing worn-out systems with more efficient ones and continually improving on maintenance practices, SI can provide safe, secure, and quality facilities for our collections, visitors, and staff.
Evidence: National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) Report, July 2001; Government Accountability Office (GAO) Study Report (GAO-05-369), April 2005; FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request; Report of the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution, May 1995.
Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?
Explanation: SI has unique facilities that support research, education, public programs, and exhibitions which span a multitude of disciplines for millions of visitors from around the world. The SI has the sole responsibility to operate and maintain existing facilities necessary to sustain its world-wide leadership status in the community of museums and cultural institutions. SI consults and sets standards with other federal agencies, as well as private museums, cultural institutions, and professional organizations. The SI is solely responsible for the upkeep of its facilities through a combination of in-house and contractual support.
Evidence: FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request; The Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers (APPA) standards; GAO Study Report (2005); SI Five-year Maintenance and Minor Repair Plan; SI FY 2007 Report of Maintenance Staffing Analysis.
Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?
Explanation: To ensure that the program is free of major flaws, by following the recommendations of various external evaluations, the Smithsonian has undertaken significant strides to over the past several years to improve the program's effectiveness. For example, initiatives such as the restructuring of the Facilities Operations, Security and Support budget structure and the reorganization of the overall facilities management program, to include the integration of O&M throughout the Institution under a single facilities director, have resulted in a substantially strengthened program. Recent reviews by outside organizations, such as the GAO, have confirmed that the new organization has added clarity in terms of responsibility and accountability. The SI has implemented a number of industry best practices and established sound priority and decision making processes to make the most effective use of available resources. Changes to the budget structure and the facilities integration have introduced a new level of flexibility that improves the SI's ability to allocate available resources to the highest priority needs. Use of this improved structure yields added leverage for limited program resources and helps achieve maximum benefit toward improving the overall condition of SI facilities. In addition to in-house efforts, the SI is involved in mentoring other agencies, such as the National Archives, National Gallery of Art, Veterans Administration, and Health and Human Services, in an effort to assist the O&M programs of these agencies. As a result of the SI's O&M initiatives, the program continues to make progress towards satisfying customer requirements (i.e., becoming more effective) and increasing efficiency in the delivery of services.
Evidence: FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request; GAO Study Report (2005); Industry Best Practices; New Facilities Budget Structure (FY 2004 Appropriation); Revised Office of Facilities, Engineering and Operations (OFEO) organization structure; Facilities Management Integration Task Force final report, 2002.
Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?
Explanation: SI facilities O&M funds are targeted to address program purposes and to avoid any unintended subsidies through formal planning and financial control mechanisms such as a comprehensive Five-Year Maintenance & Minor Repair Plan that is closely vetted with personnel requesting maintenance services, the SI's maintenance prioritization process, and the congressional budgeting process. Both NAPA and the GAO studies confirmed that the SI has a strong track record in applying O&M resources directly to program purposes. One example is the implementation of an industry approach to maintenance known as reliability centered maintenance (RCM). RCM is a maintenance philosophy that incorporates the logical and cost-effective mix of predictive, proactive, preventive, and reactive maintenance practices. Use of this approach has helped target resources to SI's preventive maintenance program, preventing breakdowns and equipment failures.
Evidence: Five-Year Maintenance & Minor Repair Plan; Maintenance Prioritization process; FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request; APPA Standards for Maintenance and Operations; NAPA Report (2001); GAO Study Report (2005).
|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 Smithsonian Institution (SI) has three long-term outcome measures and one long-term output measure that is a proxy for an outcome measure. These performance measures help determine program success. These measures articulate program priorities to improve the current poor conditions of the SI's facilities. Additionally, efficiency, process, and output measures are developed that evaluate progress toward meeting the stated outcomes. SI recently published a series of documents that display the poor state of the facilities, effectively depicting facilities requirements for years to come. The first long-term measure is on reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. The SI developed a facilities condition index (FCI) rating for each of its properties that helps identify the greatest risks and where to deploy resources. This program, along with the Facilities Capital Program (a separate PART), contribute to improving the FCI. The FCI is an output, but is used as a proxy for an outcome measure, because maintenance is prioritized to focus on life/safety issues and reducing the maintenance backlog. Reducing this backlog means that SI will better accomplish its mission. The second long-term measure is on improving the appearance (including cleanliness) of SI facilities to the benchmark standard for educational facilities. The third long-term measure is on improving the level of maintenance provided to SI facilities to the standard benchmarked for educational facilities. The fourth long-term measure is on customer satisfaction based on survey responses from Smithsonian employees who request service from facilities maintenance and operations. All of these long-term measures are focused on outcomes and are designed to ensure the Institution is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible.
Evidence: SI Annual Performance Plan (FY 2008); FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request and performance budgeting; Operational Reviews (S&E); SI Goals-at-a-Glance (GAAGs); Monthly Performance Metrics; Treasures in Trouble Volumes I - VII. See Facilities Capital PART for FCI measure.
Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?
Explanation: The long-term measures have baselines and ambitious targets. On the first measurement (reducing the deferred maintenance backlog), the SI is using a Facilities Condition Index percentage that covers all mission essential facilities and infrastructure to show the progress in reducing the deferred maintenance backlog. The beginning baseline was 85% with an ambitious target of 91% by FY 2012. The second measure (improve the appearance of SI facilities) is based on the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers benchmark standard for educational facilities (scale 1 for best condition to 5 for the worst condition). SI facilities appearance baseline was 4 with an ambitious goal of achieving a 2 by 2012. The level 2 standard will ensure that the inside of the buildings' floors, vertical surfaces, washrooms, and trash containers are fresh, clean, and odor-free. The third measure (improve the maintenance provided to SI facilities) is based on the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers benchmark standard for educational facilities (scale 1 for best condition to 5 for the worst condition). SI facilities maintenance baseline was 4 with an ambitious goal of achieving a 2 by 2012. The level 2 standard will ensure that equipment and building components are in operating condition; that sufficient staffing is in place to respond to maintenance calls in a timely manner; and that electrical and mechanical systems are routinely upgraded. The fourth measure (customer satisfaction levels) is based on survey responses from SI employees who request service from maintenance and operations. The baseline goal was to achieve 90% satisfaction ratings. The ambitious goal is to achieve a 99% by 2012 satisfaction rating which will significantly improve the quality of the service to the customer and reduce time and resources from repeat service calls.
Evidence: NAPA Report (2001); SI Five-year Maintenance and Minor Repair Plan; GAO Study Report (2005); Summary listing of maintenance backlog.
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 SI's Annual Performance Plan identifies specific annual goals that measure program progress toward meeting long-term objectives. Performance measures for O&M are specifically included in a variety of supporting documents that are closely vetted with our customer base and time-tested. Additionally, performance metrics are reviewed monthly with senior staff and reported directly to the Secretary every four months. For example, an annual measure that is very important to track is the percent of time that temperature and humidity levels are within an acceptable range in SI buildings. This measure is critical to ensure proper temperature and humidity levels are maintained to protect and preserve the priceless national collections. Preserving the nation's treasures is a primary mission of the Smithsonian. See explanation section of 2.1 and 2.2 for additional measures that are actually both annual and long-term.
Evidence: SI Annual Performance Plan (2008); NAPA Report (2001); FY 2008 Congressional Budget and performance budgeting; Operational Reviews (S&E); GAAGs; Monthly Performance Metrics.
Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?
Explanation: The NAPA and GAO studies confirmed the serious conditions of the SI's infrastructure. To correct this situation, the SI has established ambitious O&M performance targets to ensure the most effective use of SI O&M resources. The baseline for the percent of time that temperature and humidity levels are within the target range in SI buildings was established at 80 percent with a target goal to reach 85 percent in FY 2008. This is an ambitious goal with the industry standard for temperature and humidity to be within an acceptable range of 80 to 90 percent of the time. We can achieve these goals by renovating and replacing the oldest, least efficient systems. All critical operational equipment has been inventoried and a professionally developed database was established to help manage the assets and confirm equipment conditions.
Evidence: NAPA Report (2001); GAO Study Report (2005); SI Annual Performance Plan (FY 2008); Customer-negotiated service agreements.
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: The SI forms close working relationships and partnerships to achieve program goals. Detailed long-range plans for the O&M program are developed and closely vetted with internal and external customers, stakeholders, and contractors. As a result, there is a high degree of commitment for all to achieve both short- and long-term goals. One example of close coordination with our O&M clients is our customer-negotiated service agreements for each supported SI activity. Periodic meetings with these customers are held to discuss progress, successes, and problems.
Evidence: GAO Study Report (2005); Monthly project status meeting with museums; Quarterly O&M Steering Committee meetings with the museums; Facility Director's annual customer service meetings with Museum Directors.
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: Over the last 10 years, there have been three substantive and comprehensive reviews conducted of the SI's facilities. These studies have included reviews of both the Capital and Maintenance programs. The reviews evaluated the scope of the programs, along with management processes and effectiveness. Both the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report in July 2001 and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Study Report (GAO-05-369) in April 2005 evaluated the SI facilities programs. The GAO report specifically addressed the current conditions of SI facilities; how the SI manages and prioritizes its capital and maintenance projects; and the current costs of capital and maintenance projects, including those that have been deferred. Both the NAPA and GAO reports confirmed that program management was proper, funding was spent effectively, and the needs of customers were being met. Additionally, in FY 2005 Facilities Engineering Associates, an independent contractor was hired to evaluate the SI maintenance staffing levels against industry standards compiled by the Association of Higher Education Facilities Officers. The results of this evaluation were used to set the baseline for our third measure to improve the maintenance provided to SI facilities, and as justification for the additional resources required to perform these important tasks. The SI intends to continue seeking independent evaluations by third parties to further strengthen program management, processes, and results. In addition, SI frequently looks at other successful O&M programs in government and private industry and incorporates best practices where appropriate.
Evidence: Report of the Commission on the Future of the Smithsonian Institution (May 1995); NAPA Report (2001); GAO Study Report (2005); SI FY 2007 Report of Maintenance Staffing Analysis.
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 SI's congressional budgets are based on the performance-based budgeting concept which links SI plans to funding requests each year. The Institution's request for maintenance and for operations, security and support funds links performance objectives and resources requested in terms of long-range outcomes and annual requirements. The budget clearly presents the resource requirements for each program and outlines the activities supported with funds in SI's performance-based budgeting process. Detailed justifications are provided in the budget for all funding by Institutional strategic goal, by performance objectives under each goal, and by specific performance measurements for each objective for which funding is requested. As an example, the annual budget submit to OMB details one of the Institution's four strategic goals (Enhanced Management Excellence), along with the specific performance objective to Improve the overall cleanliness and efficient operation of SI facilities. The APPA Custodial Staffing Study detailed requirements necessary to achieve APPA's appearance level 2. Specific resources are requested in the budget to support the strategic goal, program objective, and are tied to the performance measurement.
Evidence: GAO Study Report (2005); NAPA Report (2001); SI Congressional Budget Requests; SI Annual Performance Plan (FY 2008); GAAGs; APPA Staffing Study; Five-Year Maintenance and Minor Repair Plan.
Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?
Explanation: The O&M Program has taken several meaningful steps to improve strategic planning. The O&M Director completed a visionary strategic plan in May 2005, scoping the O&M mission while providing a clear path forward over the next several years. An FY 2004 restructure of the budget and concurrent action taken to reorganize the SI facilities organization improved visibility over costs and budget authority, and significantly increased accountability. These actions have served to link O&M program performance and budgets to planning and execution of facilities-level milestones. A solid strategic planning structure is in place which includes a comprehensive prioritization process as part of a Five-Year Maintenance and Minor Repair planning process. Consistent with that process is a sound structure for decision-making, which provides customers and functional area experts the opportunity to participate in decisions and prioritization. Additionally, as a result of the 2001 NAPA Report, a revised budget structure and changes in the organizational structure were developed and subsequently approved in the FY 2004 appropriation. The recent GAO study confirmed that the organization and its processes are moving in the right direction. As an added measure, the O&M Director has created a financial management organization within a major component of the organization to more effectively manage and execute O&M resources.
Evidence: NAPA Report (2001); GAO Study Report (2005); Maintenance prioritization process.
|Section 2 - Strategic Planning||Score||100%|
|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: A comprehensive series of detailed performance metrics has been developed and data collected over the past several years. These indicators are tracked continually, used to help manage the program, link to both short- and long-range goals, and are presented to SI leadership each month. This process improves program performance and helps ensure that customer service needs are met in accordance with customer-negotiated service agreements. Operational Reviews are conducted three times annually with the highest level of SI leadership to help ensure the overall direction and intent of the program are achieved. In addition, quarterly steering committee meetings are held by geographic zone to review the status of projects, address concerns and issues, and evaluate performance metrics. The OFEO Director visits each museum director twice a year, which helps promote partnering.
Evidence: Customer-negotiated service agreements; Monthly Performance Metrics; Operational Reviews; GAAGs; Quarterly Facilities Steering Committee meetings.
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: Since the FY 2004 reorganization of the budget structure and FY 2005 reorganization of the Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations, accountability for the overall program (functions, funding and personnel) is now assigned to a specific senior leader. Responsibilities are further delegated to direct report managers in individual performance plans that specifically assign responsibilities and accountability for achieving program goals. The status and progress against annual targets are reviewed by senior management in the Secretary's tri-annual Operational Reviews and/or in the Deputy Secretary's monthly metrics meetings. Annual performance evaluations and awards of managers and partners are tied to the success of achieving the specific goals and objectives. SI's contracting process specifically outlines contractor deliverables and includes expected results within the stated scope of the project and schedules. SI has developed a policy that contracting technical representatives are placed on site and are responsible for evaluating contractor performance against standards established in the contract. Those who fail to perform to prescribed standards are held accountable to the terms and conditions of the contract.
Evidence: Annual performance plans for O&M Director and direct reports; Contract specifications in O&M contracts; Office of Contracting policy and contracting law regarding contractor performance.
Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?
Explanation: One of the Institution's annual performance measures evaluates whether funds available in a given year are properly obligated. In each of the last three years, the program has obligated well over 99 percent of its O&M funds. More importantly, the funds go for the highest priorities and greatest needs based upon a solid (internal) operating budget process. A comprehensive O&M planning and operating budget process is used, which provides unit directors with the flexibility to direct O&M funds for their highest priorities. The financial information is closely tracked and reported monthly to SI leadership during the monthly performance metrics reviews. Additionally, an O&M facilities financial office has been established to help manage and monitor the use of O&M funds and ensure that funds are used appropriately. The financial office has established schedules for obligating funds and the expenditures are tracked through a monthly expense budget (MEB) process that is briefed to highest level of senior management at the tri-annual operational reviews.
Evidence: Operational Reviews; FY 2003 - 2006 financial execution data; Monthly financial reports to managers; Monthly Performance Review (monthly metrics); SI Maintenance and Minor Repair prioritization process; Facilities Condition Index.
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: SI has implemented various efforts to embed internal procedures for measurement and achievement of efficiency and cost effectiveness. Included are procedures for supplier diversity initiatives to ensure outsourced work and supplies are equitably distributed to vendor sources; proper attention is given to small business categories to achieve targets; vendors are appropriately rotated; and government estimates are properly costed. The procedures also maximize the use of centralized management for contracts that cross geographic zones to gain "economies of scale" types of benefits (e.g., pest control, standard uniforms for the workforce, trash removal, carpet cleaning, etc.). In addition, the program has instituted performance- based contracts to minimize costs while improving the quality of the service provided by O&M contractors (e.g., the vertical transportation contract, facility management integration contract, and O&M contract at the Dulles Center). The SI's Office of Contracting has begun utilizing a "best value" methodology for contracting along with the traditional "lowest cost" approach. This technique provides additional cost effectiveness as the quality of work improves. The specific efficiency measure that SI is tracking with this PART is the reduction of energy consumption used in SI facilities. The energy consumed includes sources such as electricity, steam, and chilled water. The energy consumed is divided by the facility area and is expressed in British Thermal Units per gross-square-foot (BTU/GSF). The baseline target was 163,000 BTU/GSF and the Institution has made substantial progress on the goal by instituting comprehensive conservation goals, utilizing energy efficient products (such as energy-saving light bulbs), implementing energy-efficient projects, and constantly monitoring the progress at each museum.
Evidence: Performance-based contracts; Vendor rotation schedules; Small business targets; Centrally managed contracts.
Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?
Explanation: Extensive efforts are made each year to maintain a close relationship (program linkage) between the capital and maintenance programs of the Institution. There is also a direct relationship that is nurtured between the maintenance program and customer needs and requirements. A series of meetings with customers, capital program staff, and the maintenance staff is conducted annually to ensure that programmatic priorities and requirements are considered and closely coordinated. In addition, SI collaborates with other federal and local jurisdictions, such as the National Gallery of Art and Holocaust Museum to ensure coordination and well-planned implementation of related requirements. Examples of customer coordination efforts include periodic facility "walk-throughs" to review the conditions and safety, tactical planning with the museums, and formal emergency planning. Industry "best practices" are implemented where possible to enhance operations. For example, "Mean time between call-backs" (for vertical transportation), planned maintenance, and custodial and maintenance standards and best practices have all been used effectively. Implementation of these types of standard practices helps the Institution remain in close alignment with related industries and improves operational efficiency.
Evidence: Five-Year Maintenance & Minor Repair Plan; Congressional Budget Submissions; Budget Formulation Process for Capital and Maintenance Programs; APPA Standards for Maintenance and Operations; Quarterly and monthly meetings with museums; IFMA (International Facility Managers Association) certification training; IAMFA (International Association of Facility Museum Administrators).
Does the program use strong financial management practices?
Explanation: The SI has consistently received an unqualified opinion on its financial statements. No material internal control weaknesses have been identified or reported by either internal or external sources. An Enterprise Resource Planning system (PeopleSoft) has been implemented and serves as the official accounting system. It is JFMIP certified. Additionally, the SI has integrated financial and program information into day-to-day financial operations and made great strides in performance-based budgeting by restructuring its Performance Plan to align its program performance goals and objectives with the program categories used in the federal budget and the Instituion's financial accounting system. Highly qualified financial personnel are in place to handle the various O&M fund accounts.
Evidence: Financial Statement Annual Audit Reports; 2003 SI Report on Internal Controls; SI Annual Performance Plan (FY 2008); Monthly Performance Metrics.
Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?
Explanation: Several actions have been taken to enhance management visibility and deficiencies of the O&M program. For example, the O&M Director completed a visionary strategic plan in May 2005, scoping the O&M mission while providing a clear path forward over the next several years. In addition, OFEO has put in place a comprehensive process to fully articulate and vet O&M needs to include a structured prioritization process. In its recent study, GAO confirmed that these changes are moving the Institution in the right direction towards correcting program deficiencies. In its 2001 evaluation of SI's facilities management, NAPA identified 30 deficiencies and the SI has taken action to fully implement 25 of their recommendations. The remaining 5 require actions outside the organization's ability to control. The SI implemented the following: an FY 2001 reorganization of the Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations; a new FY 2004 budget structure; and further organizational refinements in an FY 2005 reorganization. To address training deficiencies, an experienced O&M supervisor has been assigned the responsibility of O&M training oversight and begun developing a comprehensive O&M training program for supervisors and the work force. A solid portion of the limited O&M budget is being invested in training for the workforce. In addition, studies geared to specific deficiencies are often conducted. Recent study initiatives include a vehicle fleet management study to address the overall management of the SI fleet, a maintenance study to address the allocation of maintenance resources, and a custodial staffing study to address the allocation of operations resources for custodial needs.
Evidence: NAPA Report (2001); GAO Study Report (2005); Maintenance Prioritization process; O&M Strategic Plan (2005); SI Fleet Management Study; SI Maintenance Staffing Study; SI Custodial Staffing Study.
|Section 3 - Program Management||Score||100%|
|Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability|
Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?
Explanation: Specific requirements have been planned over a five year period and SI continues to make limited progress at satisfying overall requirements. In recent years, OFEO has consistently developed O&M requirements and requested funds to achieve its ambitious mission. Within the amounts appropriated for the program, SI has invested appropriated resources in program requirements on a continuing basis and has the necessary checks and balances in place to ensure that highest priority needs are funded. Processes include a solid (internal) operating budget, which plans annual requirements and sets facilities priorities. Program adjustments, along with increased maintenance funding from Congress, initiated a reversal of the serious downward spiral in maintenance funding over the last decade and has resulted in some limited improvement to the condition of SI facilities. The SI's original appearance baseline (operations) began below the APPA standard level 4 and has improved overall to level 3. Initial implementation of Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) methodology has improved SI's ability to target limited maintenance resources to the most urgent problems. As a result, the Institution has made a slight improvement on reducing the deferred maintenance backlog from an initial baseline of 85% to 85.7% in FY 2006. A recent evaluation by APPA resulted in receiving the organization's award for excellence in Facilities Management - their highest institutional award. However, the SI's original APPA maintenance baseline began at the standard level 4 and the Institution is barely able to sustain this level. The Institution will continue to strive to attain the level 3 for building maintenance, which will ensure that artifacts are housed and preserved in museums with adequate humidity and temperature controls, and that building systems are maintained in accordance with RCM standards. On the long-term measure on customer satisfaction, the Institution has made substantial progress on satisfying SI employees request for facilities maintenance and operation services. The Institution has improved from a 90% baseline to 98% in FY 2006, by instituting zone managed maintenance and operations services to more efficiently process service requests.
Evidence: FY 2008 Congressional Budget Submission; SI Annual Performance Plan (FY 2008); APPA standards; Summary listing of M&MR backlog; Reports on condition-based monitoring; APPA National Award (2006).
Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?
Explanation: Since establishing annual goals, SI has achieved some targets and come close to meeting several others. Specific examples include the amount obligated (99+ percent each year), the limited progress made in improving the overall poor conditions of SI facilities, vertical transportation, and overall safety goals. The annual performance measure on maintaining the proper temperature and humidity levels to protect and preserve the national collections is close to meeting the targets. Improvements in future levels should occur when the older systems are replaced with more energy efficient systems. Partners in these achievements include many contractors that provide technical support in O&M.
Evidence: FY 2006 Detailed Performance Data Report; GAO Study Report (2005); Contract for Asset Inventory; Safety goals for Lost Work Day Incidents and Reportable Incident Rates (Monthly Performance Metrics).
Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?
Explanation: In its recent study of SI facilities, the GAO confirmed that SI is moving in the right direction to achieve facilities goals and correct long-standing deficiencies. These improvements have been made, in part, through a sound prioritization process that not only helps to determine sequencing and importance of workload, but also to set funding priorities. Lower priorities went unfunded in many cases, providing funds for projects and equipment that have been implemented to improve efficiency. On the efficiency measure, the energy consumption used in the Institution is a major cost driver for the Facilities Operations and Maintenance program. By tracking energy consumption at all facilities and establishing ambitious targets for each museum, the Institution was able to achieve substantial savings and reallocate those resources to fund utilities projects (especially energy projects with near-term savings), which will help offset future utilities increases.
Evidence: GAO Study Report (2005); Utilities efficiency projects; Chilled water project for SI's Castle building; Efficiency related operations equipment buys with year-end funds.
Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?
Explanation: The Institution compares itself to both private programs as well as governmental agencies - those that are recognized within the industry as being leaders and that use "best practices." For example, SI uses APPA standards for assessment of maintenance and operations tasks and staffing. We continuously seek out best practices with standard-setting organizations for the industry such as IFMA, IAFMA, DOE, National Gallery of Art, NASA, and the Federal Facilities Council. This enables the SI to evaluate its processes and outcomes against established standards. In its recent study, the GAO stated "This office is also adopting a variety of recognized industry best practices for managing facilities projects, such as the use of benchmarking and metrics recommended by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) and other leading decision-making bodies." A recent evaluation by APPA resulted in receiving the organization's award for excellence in Facilities Management - their highest institutional award.
Evidence: SI memberships and participation in APPA, Federal Facilities Council, IFMA, IAFMA; American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, A/C, and Engineering; Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals; Museum Benchmarks "Survey of Facility Management Practices 2004"; Performance Metrics; APPA National Award (2006).
Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?
Explanation: Over the last decade, there have been three substantive and comprehensive reviews of the program. These have looked both at the scope of the program and also its management, effectiveness and results. Both the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report in July 2001 and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) Study report (GAO-05-369) in April 2005 evaluated the SI facilities programs. The GAO report specifically addressed the current conditions of SI facilities; how the SI manages and prioritizes its capital and maintenance projects; and the current costs of capital and maintenance projects, including those that have been deferred. Both the NAPA and GAO reports confirmed that program management was proper, funding was spent effectively, and the needs of customers were being met. The SI intends to continue seeking third-party assistance, as needed, as an added measure to help improve program effectiveness.
Evidence: Commission on the Future (May 1995); NAPA Report (2001); GAO Study Report (2005) .
|Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability||Score||80%|