Brinkman report setting priorities for large facility projects sponsored by the nsf
Download
1 / 5

Brinkman Report: Setting Priorities for Large Facility Projects Sponsored by the NSF - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 257 Views
  • Uploaded on

Brinkman Report: Setting Priorities for Large Facility Projects Sponsored by the NSF. Key Issues Raised in Report Transparency of process (next slide) Involvement of community (next slide) Roadmap (spurred by Orbach’s 20-year plan)

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Brinkman Report: Setting Priorities for Large Facility Projects Sponsored by the NSF' - andrew


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Brinkman report setting priorities for large facility projects sponsored by the nsf l.jpg
Brinkman Report: Setting Priorities for Large Facility Projects Sponsored by the NSF

Key Issues Raised in Report

  • Transparency of process (next slide)

  • Involvement of community (next slide)

  • Roadmap (spurred by Orbach’s 20-year plan)

    • NSF is not DOE (integration of R&E, community-driven, university-based, transformational, riskier, cuts across more communities)

    • Need to maintain flexibility and responsiveness to community

  • Role of Deputy Director of BFA for Large Facilities

    • “oversight of process”

  • Oversight

    • Direct oversight within Directorates/Divisions (full time program officer)

  • Role of NSB

    • Validation of process, input on process

  • Design & development funds (~10% of construction)

    • Responsibility of Divisions/Directorates


Department of energy l.jpg
Department of Energy

  • Office of Science (OS) provides 60% of the support for basic research in the Physical Sciences (3.4B$)

  • 10 National Laboratories + support for university groups

  • Facilities Plan

    • 53 considered, 23 in list

    • Developed with help of OS’s 6 Assoc Directors and 6 Advisory Cmtes

    • Final priorities determined by OS Director Orbach


The mrefc approval process l.jpg
The MREFC Approval Process

  • Divisonal/Directorate Review

  • Review by NSF MREFC

  • Committee Review by Director’s Review Board

  • Approved by Director for consideration by the NSB

  • Approved by the NSB for inclusion in “the queue”

  • Approved by Director and NSB for inclusion in NSF’s budget request to the President

  • Approved for inclusion in the President’s budget request (currently working on FY06)

  • Congress appropriates Funds

  • NSF (Director and NSB) approves award when appropriated funds are available


Slide4 l.jpg

Did not address:

lifecycle costs

Operations & maintenance (~10% / yr)

Major upgrades (~50%??) eg, AdvLIGO

Research (+5% / yr)

Over the lifetime these amount to several times the construction costs and currently must come from Division/Directorates


Nsf response l.jpg
NSF Response

  • Current process largely addresses points raised, two main items need attention

  • Transparency (need to articulate process)

    • Roadmap (need something that works for NSF)

  • Congress is anxious to hear NSF and NSB Responses

  • Both NSF and NSB working on response(s) to Congress for early Fall