Compliance is mandatory

NASA has adopted a maintenance philosophy that emphasizes using the optimal mix of strategies to provide required facility availability and reliability at minimum cost in order to support current and planned NASA programs.

One of the recognized deficiencies in complying with this philosophy is the lack of an effective long- and short-range planning process at most of the Centers and their Component Facilities across NASA. Since all the Centers are moving toward a fully implemented Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) program, the next step is to provide them with a vehicle to display long- and short-range facility requirements in a manner that can be used to articulate needs based on mission impact and most probable facility availability outcomes under varying budget scenarios.

This document provides an Annual and Five-Year Maintenance Work Plan template. A business plan approach has been used to integrate smoothly into NASA’s strategic management process, afford Center Facility Management (FM) and senior managers the ability to make risk-based decisions regardless of the budget environment, and allow Center FM organizations to pursue and measure their continuous improvement efforts.

Factors considered in developing the template include NASA’s Integrated Enterprise Management Program (IEMP) and full-cost accounting, the asset management initiative, PBC conversion initiative, implementation of ISO 9000-quality process requirements into the NASA business process, and Agency-wide metrics requirements recently incorporated in the facilities maintenance self-assessment policy.

This is a template, a suggested approach to structuring (format and content) an Annual and Five-Year Maintenance Work Plan. It has been designed to assist Center FM managers in preparing sound strategies, performing risk-based management, and identifying the required resources to help enable Center and Agency goals. Center FM managers have maximum flexibility in tailoring the plan to meet individual Center needs.

Funding throughout the plan is based on current year dollars. All funding amounts within any category should reflect fully loaded (that is, all support costs) funds. For example, if a NASA contractor is developing a plan, which may become part of a larger plan, then all funding should reflect the fully loaded price to NASA. The fully loaded price would include all costs and fees (profit). In some cases, the plan will reflect contract fixed prices.

Funding needs are developed within the requirements analysis in section 3. When coupled with criticality issues, such as affect on mission or safety, it becomes an effective tool for identifying work that cannot be accomplished if the budget is reduced, as well as the highest priority backlogged work that could be accomplished if additional resources were made available.

The Annual Work Plan (AWP) is the first year, or base year, of this plan. The base year information shall be as complete and accurate as possible. In addition, the base year shall identify work that will be deferred if the proposed budget is not completely funded and the effect on the Center/Facility if that work is not performed. The outyears, beyond the base year, are estimates that will form the basis of future AWPs.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

Annual and Five-Year

(Facilities or Area) Maintenance Work Plan

Center Name

Starting Fiscal Year

(October 1, through September 30, )
Prepared By: xxxx

POC: Name

Telephone: (xxx) xxx–xxxx

e-mail: abc@nasa.gov

NOTE TO AUTHOR: The Executive Summary will summarize the long- and short-term goals and funding requirements for the facilities maintenance organization. The objective is to present the “big picture” including any requirements that cannot be accomplished within the established budget guidelines. Any adverse trends that could affect facility availability need to be described along with their probability of occurrence and their effects on safety, mission, or other costs. This is the opportunity to clearly articulate potential problems from reduced funding and the adverse impact they could have on mission support. If space allows, describe new initiatives and objectives, successes achieved to date, other initiatives outside of facilities maintenance, and funding requirements to continue them.

An effective Executive Summary should be short and concise. A good length is two to five pages. The goal is to have no surprises. If it is important, it should be mentioned here. Details must be provided somewhere within the plan for every item mentioned in this summary. The details are backup information such as a table, an appendix, or a reference to other Center data.

Funding History

All funds are in actual/current year dollars (identify if K$ or M$).

The term “Center” is inclusive of its Component Facilities, as applicable.

The funding history and projected requirements to support facility maintenance for are shown above. The funding for has been < INSERT “INADEQUATE,” “FALLS SHORT” ETC.> and has resulted in . If additional funding is not made available, < INSERT POTENTIAL FUTURE PROBLEMS>.

The following chart, together with backup details, is the proposed < INSERT CENTER NAME> Annual Work Plan for the upcoming fiscal year.

All funds are in current year dollars (identify if K$ or M$).

NOTE TO AUTHOR: The chart above should show all NASA categories of work and all other categories of work to be managed by the facilities maintenance group. The Work Element column in the chart can include any number of items. Keep in mind, to be effective, the chart should limit the items by rolling up funds from the details contained within this plan. Backup details of specific requirements within each Work Element item should be available in an appendix, within the plan, or in a specifically referenced document or source. The percentage effort refers to the percentage of overall effort that the particular category represents. Include other charts and graphs to highlight performance and new initiatives. Include pictures here and in the body of the Plan if they add value.

NOTE TO AUTHOR: The following section is an overall assessment of past, present, and future funding trends, anticipated needs, and the ability of current budget estimates to meet needs required to successfully support the Center mission. This section is a summary of Section 4.3 and Appendix F. An example of information that can be portrayed is shown below.

mission is to and is NASA’s Center of Excellence for . Facilities maintenance organization’s vision and mission are . Major active facilities maintenance programs include . Future Center programs planned include . The current state of facilities for providing the required reliability and availability to support these programs is .

The current budget anticipated needs to ensure facilities maintain a reasonably high probability of supporting current mission needs.

Preventive/Predictive Maintenance -

Programmed Maintenance - .

Repairs - < SAME AS PM/PT&I >.

Replacement of Obsolete Items - < SAME AS PM/PT&I >.

Utility Plant Operations - < SAME AS PM/PT&I >.

Grounds Care - < SAME AS PM/PT&I >.

Proactive Maintenance - < IDENTIFY COST EFFECTIVE METHODS REQUIRED TO MINIMIZE FAILURES NOT ABLE TO BE ACCOMPLISHED DUE TO BUDGET SHORTFALLS AND THE POTENTIAL SHORT- AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS >.

Special Programs – .

CoF Repairs/Revitalization - < IDENTIFY CURRENT YEAR NEEDS, FUNDED PROJECTS, AND POTENTIAL IMPACT OF UNFUNDED PROJECTS >.

Deferred Maintenance (DM), formerly known as Backlog Maintenance and Repair, is currently at or of Current Replacement Value (CRV), and is expected to increase/decrease by in the coming year due to < INSERT PRIMARY CAUSE>. Primary mission impacts of existing DM are as follows:

1. .

2. ETC.

Facilities systems having a high probability of incurring unplanned downtime due to system condition and the most probable mission impact are as follows:

1. .

2. ETC.

Facilities systems having a medium probability of incurring unplanned downtime due to system condition and the most probable mission impact are as follows:

1. .

2. ETC.

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Center Mission

3.0 Requirements Analysis

3.1 Requirements by Building or Area

3.2 Requirements for Broad Center Support

3.3 Five-Year Funding Plan

4.0 Facilities Maintenance

4.1 Maintenance Organization

4.2 Maintenance Performance

4.3 Budget Shortfall

Appendix A: Abbreviations and Acronyms

Appendix B: Definitions

Appendix C: Center Function Categories

Appendix D: Developing System Criticality

Appendix E: Sources of Data

Appendix F: Budget Shortfall/Plus-Up Planning Sheet

Appendix G: Long-Term Budget Planning Sheet

1.0 Introduction

NOTE TO AUTHOR: This section of the Annual and Five-Year Maintenance Work Plan provides the opportunity to explain what the plan is, why it was prepared, and how it can be used. The text that follows provides examples of subjects that may be included in this section.

The term “Center” is inclusive of its Component Facilities, where appropriate.

This document describes the Annual and Five-Year Maintenance Work Plan for < INSERT CENTER NAME> and represents a business plan for the facilities maintenance organization. The Plan identifies long-term and short-term maintenance requirements, describes the resources available and required to manage and accomplish facility maintenance, and outlines the maintenance philosophy and approach for < INSERT CENTER NAME>. Further, it will allow managers to make risk-based decisions on the work to be accomplished regardless of the budget environment, and it identifies specific areas to improve the overall effectiveness of facility maintenance. Overall effectiveness means PROVIDING THE REQUIRED FACILITY AVAILABILITY AT THE LOWEST COST. The plan identifies metrics to be used in tracking progress toward accomplishing these improvements. The AWP is the first year, or base year, of this plan. The outyears, beyond the base year, are estimates that will form the basis of future AWPs.

Throughout this document, the term maintenance is used to represent the compilation of activity undertaken to ensure the required facility availability at the lowest cost. That activity includes traditional maintenance, work done to reduce the probability of failure; repair, the restoration of function following failure; custodial, work done to maintain appearance or sanitation; and some operations. Sometimes it is difficult to place a single activity within one of the above categories. For example, painting provides both a failure prevention and appearance function. In addition, often the most effective maintenance approach is based on monitoring a system or machine condition and performing some activity based on that condition. Is the resultant activity maintenance or repair? This document will provide guidance for working through these issues. The activities include all of the elements identified in NPR 8831.2, Facilities Maintenance Management. Abbreviations and acronyms are contained in Appendix A. Other definitions, which are based on the NPR, other NASA documents, and discussions with NASA personnel, are contained in Appendix B.

Facilities maintenance at < INSERT CENTER NAME> is crucial in ensuring facility availability for its critical missions. The effect of reduced maintenance is not always felt immediately. It is, therefore, essential that sufficient management information is available to plan short-term and long-term maintenance requirements properly, recognize adverse funding trends, make the right decisions on what work is not accomplished, and be able to articulate the effect of reduced maintenance on facility availability and the mission.

The plan builds upon < INSERT CENTER NAME> existing mission statements to develop guidance on categorizing facilities and equipment in terms of their criticality and current condition and considers long-range plans that will affect real property assets and future maintenance requirements.

2.0 Center Mission

NOTE TO AUTHOR: This section of the plan builds upon the Center mission, defines the facilities supported and their priority relative to that mission, and looks at long-term facility changes to support the mission. Sample statements are provided below:

The mission is and is NASA’s Lead Center of Excellence (COE) for . The key mission elements at that directly and indirectly affect facilities are:

< DEFINE KEY ELEMENTS THAT AFFECT FACILITIES, BASED ON THE CENTER’S STRATEGY TO IMPLEMENT THE MISSION>.

NOTE TO AUTHOR: Categorize facilities (Table 2-1) in terms of mission criticality (determined in partnership with site users and managers), square footage, and CRV for comparison/analysis purposes. One way to do that is to identify the entire Center by core or support function categories. The following terms, currently being considered for use Agency wide, are suggested:

Mission Critical: A building, area, or system that is critical to the Center mission or essential for Center of Excellence performance.

Mission Support: A building, area, or system that provides support to the Center primary mission or Center of Excellence assignment.

Center Support: A building, area, or system that supports the overall operation of the Center but does not meet the Mission Critical or Mission Support criteria.

An example of how to collect and categorize the facilities is provided in Appendix C. An appendix is useful for providing detailed information that is summarized in tables in this section. A map of the Center may also be useful to identify building and area locations.

NOTE TO AUTHOR: Describe any specific requirements that will drive priorities or philosophy of maintenance accomplishment. Describe any known mission changes, funded or unfunded, that will impact existing or future maintenance requirements. Information may be available from the Installation Master Plan, which is prepared and maintained by the Facilities Planning Office. Describe new facilities or facility modifications/repairs that will increase or decrease current maintenance requirements. Sample statements are shown below:

Over the next the following known mission changes will have the following impact on maintenance responsibility:

Additionally the scope of maintenance coverage will be .

Table 2-1 categorizes facilities in terms of mission criticality, square footage, and CRV for comparison analysis purposes.

Table 2-1: Mission Criticality

NOTE TO AUTHOR: Buildings/areas are based on detailed breakdown (usually in an appendix). Space is gross floor space and does not include grounds (which may be separately identified). CRV is in base year dollars and includes noncollateral equipment (collateral and noncollateral equipment may be separately identified).

Mission	Actual			Projected
Category	FY(X–2)	FY(X–1)	FY(X)		FY(X+1)	FY(X+2)	FY(X+3)	FY(X+4)
Mission Critical
Buildings/Areas (No.)
Space (gross sq. ft.)
CRV ($)
Mission Support
Buildings/Areas (No.)
Space (gross sq. ft.)
CRV ($)
Center Support
Buildings/Areas (No.)
Space (gross sq. ft.)
CRV ($)
Totals
Buildings/Areas (No.)
Space (sq. ft.)
CRV ($)

Note: Space is gross floor space and does not include grounds. CRV is in base year dollars and includes noncollateral equipment.

NOTE TO AUTHOR: Identify the staffing of the Center. This may provide an indication of the level of work being performed at the Center. The staff may be NASA civil servants, other Government civil servants, or contract personnel. For fixed-price contracts, personnel figures may not be available or meaningful. A table, similar to the one below, is often effective:

Table 2-2 identifies the actual and projected staffing requirements at .

Directory: npg img
npg img -> Nasa procedural Requirements npr 3451. 3 Effective Date: August 1, 2014 Expiration Date: August 1, 2019

Download 3.19 Mb.

Share with your friends: