2. Need to balance Agency portfolio within
tight budgets
◦ Successful Programs
◦ Robust Institutional Base
Are they really competing priorities?
Is a competitive environment healthy?
Can the Agency succeed with one or the
other?
2
3. 11/12/2010 report from the Inspector General
listed “Infrastructure and Facilities Management”
as a top Agency challenge.
“NASA is the ninth largest Federal Government property
holder, controlling a network of approximately 5,400
buildings and structures that support Agency
research, development, and flight activities. NASA’s
ability to effectively manage the necessary maintenance
and renovation of this large and aging portfolio of
facilities is a critical challenge facing the Agency.”
3
4. Can the budget process help bridge the
apparent competition for scarce resources?
What is the content of these two budgets?
What activities are underway to improve these
efforts?
How are these two entities linked? Can the
synergy be improved?
4
5.
6. Lengthy budget formulation process
Small window of time for integration
of program and institution budgets
6
7. Appropriation Process Takes ~18 Months
M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J/J A S O
FY11 Execution FY12 Execution
18 MONTHS
Start PPBE-13 FY13 Appropriation
• Final budget
~March 2011 PRESIDENT approval
• Budget message to
Congress
CONGRESS • Budget Resolution
• Authorization Acts
OMB • Appropriation Acts
Review and
integrate agency
recommendations
Markup and OMB
reclama process • Midyear update /
Secure final sequester report
determinations by • Apportionment of
President appropriated funds
AGENCIES
• Operating Plans
Internal determination of requirements
• Implementation of AGENCIES
and authorities
program
Formation of budget recommendations
• Obligations
• Costs
• Outlays
7
8. Feb March April May June July Aug Sept Oct
Agency Budget Final Budget
Leadership Governance/Decisions Reviews Decisions
President’s Agency
Budget Request
Request to OMB
Issues Issues Agency Budgets
Book Book Decisions Amended
HQ Office of the Chief Financial Officer Update Made as
Necessary
Agency Program Program &
Guidance Budgets Center
Submitted Budgets
Program Integrated
Budget
Mission Directorates Reviews
Program
Guidance
Work actions as necessary based on decisions
Programs/Projects &
Centers
Budget Development
8
9.
10. Agency budget is understandably mission
oriented
Center institutional component of budget
◦ Relatively small
◦ More than “overhead”
10
13. FY10 Center M&O Budget
Science &
Engineering Institutional
Engineering Technical
$244M, 51% Programmatic
Center Investments
Authority
$1,679
Ensure core science $483
$65M, 13%
$122M, 25% 78%
and engineering 22%
Independent Research &
Engineering Leadership
SMA Technicalare
capabilities
Development Authority
&
$52M, 11% to support
available
Bid and Proposal Chief
Program/Project
Safety and Mission at
program activities
Engineers
a Center
Assurance Support
13
13
14. FY10 CMO Institutional Budget Center Director
Center Multi-Media Support
Equal Opportunity &
Diversity
Other Center Management
Strategic Communications
Chief Counsel
Procurement
Human Resources
Financial Management
Occupational Health
Logistics
Utilities
Operations
Inactive Buildings & Structures
Roads & Grounds Maintenance
Scheduled (proactive) Maintenance
Unscheduled (reactive) Maintenance
New Capability
Other Facilities Services
14
Facility Management
15.
16. Profiles Vary Widely By Center
FY 2004 Center G&A – with CoF • Focus on budget year
knowing that out-year
budgets could be adjusted in
FY 2005 Center G&A – no CoF next cycle
• Some Centers anticipating
reduced workforce
FY 2006 Center G&A
Profiles Vary Widely By Center
CMO - Center G&A,
FY 2007 Facilities & IT Service
Pools, Eng & SMA Existing G&A Out-yr budgets
Technical Authority transferred to CMO as fixed
budget
FY 2008 CMO – Added Indirect
portion of remaining
Service Pools Profiles Consistent Across Agency
• Reallocated budget among
FY 2009 CMO Centers
•Reallocated some funds (FY09)
from Corporate G&A
16
17. During recent years, the institutional budget
portfolio has seen several process changes all
seeking to improve efficiencies
◦ Baseline Services Level Review
◦ Institutional Gap Review
◦ Corporate Portfolio Management Review
17
18. Goal:
◦ Define content of Center Management & Ops budget for
ease of explanation to stakeholders
◦ Minimize or eliminate the variation in service levels
provided across the Agency
◦ Minimize or eliminate variation in charging practices
Conclusions
◦ City Management functions – goals met
◦ Technical Capability functions – more work to be done
18
19. Began as review of facilities require decision as
Shuttle Program ended
◦ Continue operations – fund with next Program with
requirement? Mothball – until needed by future Program?
Abandon – not needed in foreseeable future?
Acknowledges need to maintain minimum critical skills
for the Agency during a changing environment
Review of all facilities and technical capabilities –
focus is Human Spaceflight (ESMD/SOMD)
◦ What will be needed by future programs?
Excellent example of ongoing debate that links
infrastructure, capabilities, and Programmatic
requirements
19
20. NASA Agency management proposed that a
process be instituted to manage Agency
strategic capabilities as corporate portfolios
◦ Study underway
◦ Promotes increased collaboration across NASA
20
21.
22. Mission Directorate example
Center example
Civil Service budgeting
22
23.
24. A healthy institutional base enables
Programmatic success
Tension between two competing budget
entities can be healthy – if kept in check
Real-life budget pressures require both to
be efficiently managed
24
