RESPONSE. Accepted with modification. Language has been changed as requested by the comment. However, this comment is editorial in nature and does not meet the criteria for major comments. Cetain instances occur in the order where the intent is for an activity to happen in a future timeframe as opposed to a requirement. In those instances "will" has been used in place of "must."
COMMENT:2) There appear to be reporting requirements in a number of paragraphs, (CRD ¶¶ 1.c., 2., 3.c. & d., 4.e.). Have the FIMS and the TYSP been approved by OMB? If not, and they request the same information from ten or more persons (contractors), they may be subject to Paperwork Reduction Act requirements. Contact GC-80 with questions concerning the application of the Paperwork Reduction Act to your information collections.
RESPONSE. Accepted with Modification. The Order has been scrubbed to remove prescription, focus on the requirements (the what) for real property asset management. Areas throughout the draft RPAM have been better organized and repetative/redundant statements eliminated. Changes to the Order are reflected in the CRD, and the CRD has been further streamlined to remove the inherently governmental functions and responsibilities from the contractor, and pared down to be specific about what tasks the contractor is expected to perform (omit the how), and eliminate philosophy. The Facilities Information Management System (FIMS)is a Federal Property Management Regulations (FPMR)requirement for all Federal agencies to maintain an inventory of their real property assets. FIMS is not a new requirement and has been a requirement for many years. The TYSP is a requirement for DOE as directed to the CFO through the FY 02 Energy & Water Appropriations Conference Report 107-258.
COMMENT:3) If this Order is intended to apply to defense nuclear facilities, it must have a separate finding that the order is necessary for the protection of human health and the environment or safety, the fulfillment of current legal requirements, or the conduct of critical administrative functions, as specified in 42 USC 7274k. Please contact MA-80 for details.
RESPONSE. Accepted with Modification.
COMMENT:4) The draft does not appear to establish requirements on members of the public that necessitate a notice and comment rulemaking. No action by the OPI is required.
RESPONSE. Accepted. However, this comment does not meet the criteria for major comments.
COMMENT: 5) The directive is a "rule" as that term is defined by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 801-804, which requires that, when issued in final form, the directive be reported to Congress. No action by the OPI is required. GC will report this directive to Congress when it is issued.
RESPONSE. Accepted. However, this comment does not meet the criteria for major comments.
COMMENT: Subject Matter Expert laura.fullerton@hq.doe.gov Attachments 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 should probably be attached to the CRD since they appear to contain information the contractor may need to complete the tasks to be assigned. However, the attachments would then need editing to separate out DOE responsibilities from tasks and the CRD would need to state that the attachments to the directive are to be attached to the CRD as well.
RESPONSE. Accepted with Modification. The Order has been scrubbed to remove prescription, focus on the requirements (the what) for real property asset management. Areas throughout the draft RPAM have been better organized and repetative/redundant statements eliminated. Changes to the Order are reflected in the CRD, and the CRD has been further streamlined to remove the inherently governmental functions and responsibilities from the contractor, and pared down to be specific about what tasks the contractor is expected to perform (omit the how), and eliminate philosophy.]]> RESPONSE: Accepted with Modification. The Order has been scrubbed to remove prescription, focus on the requirements (the what) for real property asset management. Areas throughout the draft RPAM have been better organized and repetative/redundant statements eliminated. Changes to the Order are reflected in the CRD, and the CRD has been further streamlined to remove the inherently governmental functions and responsibilities from the contractor, and pared down to be specific about what tasks the contractor is expected to perform (omit the how), and eliminate philosophy.
FD,C,AWM,2/5/03 COMMENT: There are many new requirements in the draft RPAM that are presently not required within the existing NNSA Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plan (TYCSP) process. These include: Summary of 5-year sustainment plan (with 2-4% RPV as the objective) or the sustainment plan itself (expectations for content are not provided) Summary of recapitalization plan or the recapitalization plan itself (expectations for content are not provided)
RESPONSE:Concur. The document has been changed to say the sustainment and recapitalization requirements will be summarized in the TYCSP. No formal plan will be required.
Subject: Value Engineering (New Requirement - i.e., VE) Lead SME: TJB Status: C Action: A Date: 2/07/03 COMMENT: There are many new requirements in the draft RPAM that are presently not required within the existing NNSA Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plan (TYCSP) process. These include: . . . Expanded value engineering requirements . . .
RESPONSE: The expanded (establishing minimum threshold for application of formal or mandatory VE processes) requirement for VE activities were included to align the requirements contained in this DOE Order with DOE N 413.2 (VE Policy) and OMB Circular A-131 requirements.
NF,C,NA,2/25/03. COMMENT: There are many new requirements in the draft RPAM that are presently not required within the existing NNSA Ten-Year Comprehensive Site Plan (TYCSP) process. These include: . . . Identifying real property assets by categories of high, medium and low . . .
RESPONSE: Not Accepted. Classification categories to identify 'mission critical' real property assets is consistent with IG and GAO report recommendations.
NF,C,A,2/14/03. COMMENT. ATT 4, page 2, Future Condition asks for real property asset projects and activities required to meet BOTH budgets and planning estimates. NNSA requires only a constrained case now. If intention is to ask for both a target and overtarget case--clarification is needed.
RESPONSE: Accepted. This section and section and body of the Order Section 4.a.(5).(b) are revised to require budgets and planning estimate to be consistent with the Departments PPBES, the Secretary's Five-Year Planning Guidance, annual program direction and guidance, and the field budget call. The constrainted case is identified in one or more of these. Also, section 5 Responsibilities of the Order states that LPSO/CSO/PSOs provide annual program direction and guidance to include program missions, budgets, and planning estimates for use in developing the TYSP in accordance with the PPBES. The LPSO/CSO/PSO responsibilities section also cites that program mission projections will be for the 10-year planning horizon, and program budget and planning estimates will be for at least the 5-year planning horizon. The program budget and planning estimates for the 5-year planning horizon will identify the constrained case, which is consistent with the PPBES. Budgets are through the Budget Year (BY), and planning estimates are for the periods beyond the BY. Budgets indicate a quality and pedegree of estimate that is required for budget level cost estimates. The planning estimates are for those timeframes beyond the budget year. The pedegree of the planning estimate will be expectedly lower than that of budget estimates, and be lower still as one moves further out beyond the budget year, and into out-year projections. But, note that this section is written to provide flexibility for the program direction and guidance (at the program's discretion)to require the identification of projects and activities for planning on an unconstrained funding case in addition to the constrained case.
NF,C,AWM,2/14/03. COMMENT. The potential impacts of the Draft DOE O 430.1B on the NNSA are: Higher costs to accomplish DOE required administrative 'paperwork' related to facilities management. Initial projections are that up to 10 or more staff members per site may be needed to accommodate the new workload to meet DOE administrative requirements of DOE O 430.1B. A situation of two 'masters' may be created for NNSA sites, with dual reporting and controls from both NNSA and from the DOE CFO OECM office. In order to most cost effectively manage NNSA sites, remain consistent with the organizational policies of the and achieve the national defense mission, the NNSA may find it necessary to independently determine the appropriate extent of application of this Order. (NA-52 /OAK/AL) . . . and Comment: There is no indication that resource impacts of this draft Order have been formally evaluated or identified. Additional Program Direction resources are implied to support staffing, training, and certification of required Certified Realty Specialists and however, these requirements have not been quantified or estimated. This is problematic in that NNSA is projecting a substantial reduction in existing Federal staff over the next two years. Additionally, resource impacts to Program budgets have not been assessed. One NNSA laboratory estimated an additional requirement of ten Full Time Equivalents to support the implementation of new requirements in this draft Order. The combined impact to Program and Program Direction budgets within NNSA could be tens of millions of dollars. NNSA requests that the potential resource impacts, in the context of cost versus benefit, be evaluated and communicated to senior management. (NA-52/NV)
RESPONSE. Accepted with modification. A cost and benefit analysis of RPAM implementation has been accomplished and communicated. However, some of those details and additional details are provided here. As a basic premise, RPAM is not levying many new requirements beyond its predecessor Order (DOE O 430.1A, LCAM) and what the Department is already doing. Examples include: 1) TYSP - TYCSP's (NA) and Institutional Plans (SC) are already being developed.
2) Acquisition - GPP's & IGPP's are already in use
3) Real Estate - CRS are already used for all real property transactions
4) Maintenance - Maintenance programs are already required
5) Disposition and LTS - Requirements and Transfer Agreements are already required, and baseline data for BY plus one is already being accomplished.
6) Value Engineering - Requirements are already mandated by OMB Circular A-131.
7) Performance Measures - AUI and ACI will be derived directly from data in existing/required database (FIMS), and the HQs program offices already provide a quarterly assessment of the IFI Crosscut Budget expenditures. The AUI will use data already being gathered from the FPMR requirement for annual utilization surveys and data already required in FIMS; and the ACI will be calculated using data in existing/required FIMS.
The additional requirement for Federal staffing to adequately manage real property asset management at each site is driven by Congressional report language.
NF,C,A,2/14/03. COMMENT. IFI Crosscut. It is unclear if the intention is for the TYSP to include the IFI Crosscut Budget or if this will be a separate exhibit -- the two are currently not integrated and the draft RPAM order does not make this clear. (NA-52)
RESPONSE. Accepted. Figure 1 and Para 4.a.(3) are revised to cite that the TYSP is consistent with the IFI Crosscut Budget in identifying the the resources required.
AD, AM, C, Definition for economic development transfer was added. ]]> RESPONSE. Comment Accepted. Section has been revised.
NF,C,AWM, 2/13/03. COMMENT: The requirement of an annual update of the TYSP (a PSO document) is considered unnecessary and its integration with CFO Integrated Facilities and Infrastructure Crosscut budget input not workable.
RESPONSE. Accepted with Modification. Para 4.a.(2) "annually in a TYSP" is modified to "in a Ten-Year Site Plan (TYSP) that is kept current and covers a ten-year planning horizon." Also, "Integration" between the TYSP and the IFI Crosscut is not stated in the draft Order as cited by the SC comment. However, the Figure 1 and Para 4.a.(3) are revised to cite that the TYSP is consistent with the IFI Crosscut Budget in identifying the the resources required. Also, "FY 04 and May 03" is deleted from Figure 1 TYSP.
NF,C,AWM, 2/13/03. COMMENT: In addition, the Order would greatly benefit from better organization and elimination of repatative statements
RESPONSE: Accepted with Modification. The Order has been scrubbed to remove prescription, focus on the requirements (the what) for real property asset management. Some areas throughout the draft RPAM have been better organized and repetative/redundant statements eliminated. Changes to the Order are reflected in the CRD, and the CRD has been further streamlined to remove the inherently governmental functions and responsibilities from the contractor, and pared down to be specific about what tasks the contractor is expected to perform (omit the how), and eliminate philosophy.]]> Recommend that Order Sections 3.a, and 3.c, Applicability, should be revised to read, 'This order does not apply to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), except as determined solely by NNSA to be appropriate.'

The potential effects of the Draft DOE O 430.1B are:
1. Higher costs to accomplish DOE required administrative 'paperwork' related to facilities management.
2. Funds and staff will likely have to be diverted from actual facilities maintenance in order to satisfy DOE's increasingly prescriptive requirements.
3. Initial projections are that up to 10 or more staff members may be needed to accommodate the new workload to meet DOE administrative requirements of DOE O 430.1B.
4. Creates a less flexible, less agile facilities program, with reduced opportunity to meet changing national security needs.
5. A situation of two 'masters' may be created for NNSA sites, with dual reporting and controls from both NNSA and from the DOE CFO OECM office. ]]> Recommend that Order Sections 3.a, and 3.c, Applicability, should be revised to read, 'This order does not apply to the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), except as determined solely by NNSA to be appropriate.'

They meet the Major Comments criteria for those issues that are serious enough to preclude or significantly hamper the Department's ability as well as the Managing and Operating Contractor's ability to do the following: performing efficiently and economically, complying with applicable laws, rules and regulations, fulfilling contractual obligations and formal commitments, and accomplish policy objectives and missions. Overall, Sandia's review indicates that the Draft DOE O 430.1B establishes numerous requirements that appear to have the potential to increase operating costs and to hamper efficient site operations. Subject Matter Expert bblickem@doeal.gov Major Issue - Comply with Applicable Laws, Rules, and Regulations. References to DOE P 580.1, Management Policy for Planning, Programming, Budgeting, Operation, Maintenance and Disposal of Real Property, dated 05-20-02 identifies the DOE without designating the National Nuclear Security Administration "exclusion or inclusion" in its application. The definition of 'trailers' is contradictory to the former DOE definition of trailers. The reference to 41 CFR 101 is not exclusively the regulation applicable to DOE for disposal needs. The Atomic Energy Act subpart 161(g) also applies. DOE P 580.1 should be revised to define or correct definitions. ]]> They meet the Major Comments criteria for those issues that are serious enough to preclude or significantly hamper the Department's ability as well as the Managing and Operating Contractor's ability to do the following: performing efficiently and economically, complying with applicable laws, rules and regulations, fulfilling contractual obligations and formal commitments, and accomplish policy objectives and missions. Overall, Sandia's review indicates that the Draft DOE O 430.1B establishes numerous requirements that appear to have the potential to increase operating costs and to hamper efficient site operations.]]> RESPONSE: See RevCom Response under #3 Applicability for Sue Silva (WAPA DPC)]]>

RESPONSE: Accepted.]]> Failure to resolve this issue will jeopardize DOE’s ability to perform efficiently and economically. Paul W. Kruger, Associate Manager-Science & Technology authorizes this comment. ]]> RESPONSE: In accordance with Section 302 of the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 578), the Secretary operates and maintains the Power Marketing Administrations (PMA) electric power transmission systems by and through the PMA Administrator. The PMA's are uniquely established within the Department by nature of their Administrators obligations to meet statutory and public utility responsibilities for the safety, security, and reliability of electric power transmission of their legal and contractual obligation. The PMAs have real property management programs in place that are geared to the special needs of utility operations, responsive to coordinated multi-utility system requirements, and in conformance with prudent utility practices. Administrators shall determine the appropriate real property asset management program for their facilities including consideration of appropriate parts of the criteria set forth by this Order.]]>

RESPONSE: Accepted. The stated language in this section of the draft Order is consisitent with the comment, 'to consolidate reports, rather than produce multiple reports with duplicate information.' However, the Order section under Responsibilities, LPSO for Multiprogram Site has been revised to strengthen the requirement for a consolidated TYSP, including input from tenant CSO's.
NF,C,A,2/14/03. COMMENT: Page 4, para. 4a.(5)(f) - 'Submission concurrently with responses to the Field Budget Call (usually the May timeframe)' The NNSA is going through the Programming Phase in May and the proposed date does not support NNSA's PPBE process. The NNSA Field Budget Call will be due around the end of July. Submission of TYSP should support and be consistent with PPBE cycle. (NA-52/NV/OAK)
RESPONSE: Accepted. Submission language revised to 'concurrently with the Field Budget Call (usually in the May -June timeframe), or as directed by the LPSO/CSO/PSO to be consistent with the PPBES cycle.' ]]> For multi-program sites, it is important that only a single plan be required. At present, the NNSA requires a Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan (TYCSP). At Sandia National Laboratories, a single plan has been prepared with the multi-program plans consolidated with the NNSA TYCSP. This approach yields a better overall site plan, and is more cost effective than if multiple plans were required. It is recommended that NNSA and DOE CFO/OECM work together to ensure that a single plan document can continue to be used, rather than incur the many inefficiencies and complexities of having multiple plan documents.

Paragraph 4.a(5)(e) "Space utilization activities and land-use that stabilize, then reduce, the baseline for real property asset costs".
The flexibility to grow to meet mission needs is especially important for multi-program sites. The Draft O 430.1B should reflect the various potential growth cases, not just the cases where reduction is or may need to occur. Recommend the following edit: "Space utilization activities and land-use that stabilize, and then reduce or if appropriate increase, the baseline for real property asset costs. It is acknowledged that, while some sites need drastic reduction in square footage due to reduction of mission need, other sites are in fact sustaining or even increasing their mission activities, and may in fact need to grow." Yvonne Salaz (LANL DPC) for Los Alamos National Laboratory Comments provided by Aleene Jenkins, LANL SME. Paragraph 4a(3) page 3 - The order now closely ties the IFI Crosscut Budget (previously submitted by BUS Division) to the TYSP. Improvements in cost capture and reporting will be needed to allow reconciliation between the to documents. Paragraph 4a(5)(f) page 4 - The order indicates the submission (we assume final) is due with the Field Budget Call typically in May each year. In the past we have made two submissions (draft in May and final in September). Please clarify that the May due date is in fact the final and formal submission date and no additional submissions will be required. ]]> For multi-program sites, it is important that only a single plan be required. At present, the NNSA requires a Ten Year Comprehensive Site Plan (TYCSP). At Sandia National Laboratories, a single plan has been prepared with the multi-program plans consolidated with the NNSA TYCSP. This approach yields a better overall site plan, and is more cost effective than if multiple plans were required. It is recommended that NNSA and DOE CFO/OECM work together to ensure that a single plan document can continue to be used, rather than incur the many inefficiencies and complexities of having multiple plan documents.