Order Code RS21267
Updated August 14, 2006
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
National Science Foundation: Major Research
Equipment and Facility Construction
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account of
the National Science Foundation (NSF) supports the acquisition and construction of
major research facilities and equipment that are to extend the boundaries of science,
engineering, and technology. The facilities include supercomputer centers, earth
simulators, astronomical observatories, and the South Pole Station. Currently, the NSF
provides approximately $1 billion annually in support of facilities and other
infrastructure projects. The funding for individual facilities ranges from several tens of
millions to hundreds of millions of dollars. While the NSF does not directly design or
operate research facilities, it does have final responsibility for oversight and
management. Recently, questions have been raised by many in the scientific community
concerning the adequacy of the planning and management of NSF facilities. In addition,
there has been considerable debate related to the backlog of approved but unfunded
projects, and the criteria used to select projects for MREFC support. This report will be
updated periodically.
Background. The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction
(MREFC) account of the National Science Foundation (NSF) was established in FY1995
and supports the acquisition, construction and commissioning of major research facilities
and equipment that are to extend the boundaries of science and engineering. Major
research facilities are complex in their design, construction, and operation and require a
large investment over a limited period of time. Examples of some of the funded projects
include telescopes, research vessels, accelerators, networked high-tech research platforms,
advanced computing resources, and earthquake simulators. These complex projects
sometime involve the participation of international partners. Currently, the NSF provides
approximately $1 billion annually in support of facilities and other infrastructure projects.
The funding for individual facilities ranges from several tens of millions to hundreds of
millions of dollars.
With the significant exception of research facilities in the Antarctic, the NSF does
not directly design or operate research facilities. Rather, it makes awards to other
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
organizations such as universities, consortia of universities, or nonprofit organizations
which have the responsibility of construction, operation and management. The NSF
enters into cooperative agreements with these external entities, and has the final
responsibility for oversight of the development, management and performance of the
facilities.
During the past few years, NSF’s portfolio of facilities has expanded and diversified
to include complex multidisciplinary projects and distributed projects. Because these
major facility projects are multi-year, their accounting, management and oversight require
more complexity and detail than the traditional average grant award. There are concerns
from Congress and from some in the academic and scientific community about the
adequacy of the planning and management of NSF facilities. Discussions have focused
on how major facility projects are selected for funding. Other questions have centered
on the types of costs to be funded through the MREFC account and NSF personnel
involved in major facility projects. In the FY2002 budget submission, President Bush
directed the NSF to develop clearer policies and procedures for managing all aspects of
large facility projects, including funding controls and effective project management.1 The
FY2002 budget document, A Blue Print for New Beginnings: A Responsible Budget for
America’s Priorities, directed that “NSF will develop a plan to enhance its capability to
estimate costs and provide oversight of project management and construction. This plan
should help ensure that NSF is able to meet and stick to cost and schedule commitments
for major facility projects.”2
Definition of a Major Research Facility. The MREFC is an agency-wide
capital asset account that funds major science and engineering infrastructure projects that
cost more than one program’s budget could support.3 Major research facility projects are
defined as those awards made for establishing and/or operating a major tool or facility that
will potentially benefit a community of researchers and/or educators. A project should “...
[O]ffer the possibility of transformative knowledge and the potential to shift existing
paradigms in scientific understanding, engineering processes and/or infrastructure
technology.” 4A research facility is considered “major” if its total cost of construction
and/or acquisition constitutes an investment that is more than 10% of the annual budget
of the sponsoring directorate or office. The majority of large facility projects are funded
1 In December 2000, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the NSF released an audit of the
Gemini Project, reporting that the Gemini Project had cost overruns exceeding its approved
construction level of $184 million. The OIG further stated that the NSF had used or was planning
to use approximately $52.8 million from the Research and Related Activities Account (RRA) to
cover the excess construction and commission costs. NSF management refuted the conclusions
of the OIG, maintaining that the excess costs were operational in nature and as a result, properly
supported through the RRA as opposed to the MREFC account.
2 Office of Management and Budget, A Blueprint for New Beginnings: A Responsible Budget for
America’s Priorities, Washington, February 28, 2001, p. 161.
3 The proposed facilities are too large to fit within the account of any one directorate or program.
The concern is that support for such large projects would “disrupt” the budgets of other programs
and jeopardize NSF’s traditional support of “core” research programs.
4 National Science Foundation, Facility Plan, September 2005, Arlington, VA, p. 6

---

CRS-3
through the MREFC, but some are also supported through the Research and Related
Activities Account (RRA) and the Education and Human Resources (EHR) account.5
Congressional Hearing on Planning and Management Issues. On
September 6, 2001, the House Committee on Science, Subcommittee on Research, held
a hearing on planning and management issues associated with major research facilities
at the NSF. These hearings grew out of concerns expressed by some in the academic and
scientific community and in Congress about the management and oversight of major
projects selected for construction and the need for prioritization of potential projects
funded in the MREFC. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Research, then NSF
Director, Rita R. Colwell, stated that the draft of the Large Facility Projects Management
and Oversight Plan codifies practices already in place and develops new guidelines for
oversight of financial and business functions. She responded to criticism that the lines
of authority for project management included in the draft plan were ambiguous and that
those with oversight functions for the projects were program officers who may not have
the expertise necessary for overseeing a complex project. Colwell described the Plan as
one that did ensure lines of authority and responsibility. The Plan established a new
position — Deputy Director for Large Facility Projects. Under the Plan, the Deputy
Director would be responsible for implementing and managing guidelines and procedures
for facility management and oversight, maintaining lines of authority for facility
management, and providing project management training for NSF staff engaged in large
facility projects.
There has been considerable debate concerning the selection of major research
facility projects for funding. In testimony before the Subcommittee on Research, Anita
K. Jones, then Vice Chair, NSB, stated that because not all facilities can be built at the
time they are considered, the NSB established guidelines for approving major facility
projects.6 She emphasized that there is a prioritization process for selecting major
projects, one that involves the NSF and the community, with the NSB actually making the
priority decisions. The NSB, she asserted, reviews the need for the facility, the research
that will be enabled, the readiness of plans for construction and operation, construction
budget estimates, and operations budget estimates before making its decisions. Another
issue brought before the Subcommittee was that of maintaining distinct records of
spending activities in the MREFC. Subcommittee members questioned the types of costs
to be funded through the MREFC account because the differentiation between
5 Since its establishment, the MREFC has funded the following projects: Atacama Large
Millimeter Array (ALMA), IceCube Neutrino Detector R&D, High-Performance Instrumented
Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER), Large Hadron Collider, Terascale
Computing System and Distributed Terascale Facility, Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave
Observatory (LIGO), George E. Brown, Jr. Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation
(NEES), Polar Support Aircraft Upgrades, South Pole Safety Project and South Pole Station
Modernization, EarthScope, National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), the Gemini
Observatory, and the Scientific Ocean Drilling Vessel (SODV). The FY2007 budget request
provides funding for two new starts – the Alaskan Region Research Vessel and the Ocean
Observatories Initiative. The FY2007 request also requests funding for one new start in FY2008
– Advanced LIGO.
6 National Science Board, Guidelines for Setting Priority for Major Research Facilities, NSB01-
204, Arlington, VA, November 15, 2001, 2 pp.

---

CRS-4
construction and operation is not always clearly defined.7 The Subcommittee noted that
internal mechanisms needed to be created in order to prevent the combining of MREFC
and RRA funds.
Audit of Funding for Major Research Equipment and Facilities. In May
2002, the NSF’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a draft report, Audit of
Funding for Major Research Equipment and Facilities.8 The report noted that the current
policy for major research equipment and facilities projects is limited to only the MREFC
and does not include major facilities for other programs in NSF. In addition, the existing
guidelines stipulate a single financial review and do not offer directives on how the
review should be conducted. Also, according to the audit, the current policies did not
provide direction to NSF program mangers on how to address the problem of potential
cost overruns. While federal guidelines require that the total cost of major research
facilities be tracked through all stages of a project, NSF’s policies and procedures did not
provide full accounting costs in its financial reports in accordance with federal standards.
Because of NSF’s inconsistences in tracking costs and funding sources of its major
research and equipment and facilities, the OIG recommended that NSF review and revise
its policies and procedures by complying with the directives that were detailed in the
FY2002 appropriations bill. The recommendations called for NSF to: 1) track the full
costs of major research equipment and facilities throughout the life cycle of the project
in accordance with federal accounting and management guidelines; 2) define a process
that makes clear and consistent distinctions in types of costs to be funded - - construction
(MREFC-funded) as opposed to research (R&RA-funded); 3) establish a procedure for
addressing costs overruns and approving subsequent funding; and 5) provide training on
revised or updated policies to all personnel involved with review agreements and awards.
Congressional Activity. In June 2002, Congress requested the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review NSF’s management of its large facility projects.9
The study began in February and examined how the NSF sets priorities in determining
which competing projects to fund, and offered recommendations on how to strengthen the
process. The recommendations are contained in a January 2004 report prepared jointly
by the NSB and the NSF – Setting Priorities for Large Research Facility Projects
Supported by the National Science Foundation.10 At an October 2004 meeting of the
NSB, the NSF was directed to begin implementation of the proposed large facility project
review and prioritization process outlined in the report. The report revealed that in
7 Acquisition, construction and commissioning are funded through the MREFC. Planning,
design, and development are supported through the RRA and/or EHR, in addition to operations
and maintenance upon completion of the project.
8 National Science Foundation, Office of Inspector General, Audit of Funding for Major Research
Equipment and Facilities, OIG02-2007, May 1, 2002, Arlington, VA, 17 pp.
9 The NSF Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-368, H.R. 4664) contained language directing
the NAS to conduct the study of NSF’s priority-setting process of its large facility projects.
10 National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy, and
Global Affairs Division, Board on Physics and Astronomy, Setting Priorities for Large Research
Facility Projects Supported by the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC, January 14,
2004, 215 pp.

---

CRS-5
addition to there being a backlog of approved but unfunded projects, there was a lack of
support for disciplines conducting idea-generating activities, and lack of funding for
conceptual development, planning, and design.
Planning and Management Issues. In September 2005, NSF released its first
Facility Plan, with a second annual Facility Plan scheduled for release in 2006.11 The
Plan covers pre-award and implementation phases and places increased emphasis on post-
award oversight of construction and management. The Facility Plan describes NSF’s
goals and strategies for incorporating the existing approaches and practices into a system
for selecting, managing, and overseeing large facility projects so as to make certain that
a large facility is both built right and is the right facility to build. The Plan employs a
team approach and details the cooperation between the scientific and technical staff and
the business operations staff. The lines of authority and responsibility are defined for the
NSF Director, the participating Division Director, the NSF Program Manager, and the
awardees’ project director. In every large facility project, the NSF Program Manager,
with the support of the participating Division Director, has primary responsibility for all
aspects of management. In addition, the NSF Program Manager is responsible for
determining whether the project director and project management staff have the necessary
training and skills for working on the project. A Project Advisory Team (PAT) is to be
convened for all large facility projects. The purpose of the PAT is to “ . . . provide advice
and assistance on planning, review and management of the project to assure the
establishment of realistic cost, schedule and performance goals and to develop terms and
conditions of awards for constructing, acquiring and/or operating the facility.”12 The PAT
is to be composed of individuals with the necessary expertise in the relevant science and
engineering fields, in addition to those with extensive knowledge of the management,
business, and legal aspects associated with the project.
The November 2005 report, Guidelines for Planning and Managing the Major
Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Account (MREFC), details the
procedures by which large facility research projects advance through a multi-phase
internal and external review and approval process.13 According to the Guidelines, a
MREFC Panel evaluates the projects based on, among other things, project definition,
intellectual justification, connection to NSF strategic goals and priorities, life-cycle cost
profile, partnerships, and project management plans, schedules, and reviews. Based on the
review, the MREFC Panel submits to the NSF Director its recommendation on the
project’s relative importance, eligibility, and readiness, with readiness defined as its
ability to be included in the upcoming budget request. The Director then makes the
selection of projects based on: 1) strength and substance of the information; 2) the
appropriate balance among various fields, disciplines, or directorates; and 3) opportunities
to leverage MREFC funds. The Director submits his selections to the National Science
11 National Science Foundation, Facility Plan, September 2005, Arlington, VA, 61 pp. NOTE:
A draft Facility Plan was released in September 2001. Currently, the second Facility Plan is
scheduled for review by the NSB in the fall of 2006.
12 National Science Foundation, Large Facility Projects and Management and Oversight Plan,
September 10, 2001, Arlington, VA, p. 4.
13 National Science Foundation, Guidelines for Planning and Managing the Major Research
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) Account, Arlington, VA, November 22, 2005,
29 pp.

---

CRS-6
Board (NSB) for project approval. After the NSB approves a project for future budget
cycle funding, it prioritizes among the projects.14 On an annual basis, the NSB reviews
all NSB-approved projects that have not been funded as yet to determine if any changes
are necessary to the priority order of the projects. 15 If a project is not approved, or if a
project’s plans are no longer determined to be “clearly and fully construction ready,” the
project will be returned to the preliminary design/readiness phase for additional work. A
project can be resubmitted to the NSB the following year.
While the NSB may approve a project for inclusion in a future budget request
because it has been deemed meritorious and its planning is “sufficiently advanced,”
approval does not necessarily mean that the NSB will recommend its inclusion in the
upcoming budget request. It does indicate that the project is to be considered for
inclusion, depending on current budget levels and constraints. Those large facility projects
that the NSB includes in a budget request and submits to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) must be accompanied by a Capital Asset Plan.16 The Capital Asset Plan
is to provide a summary of spending for project stages; justification and information on
program management and acquisition strategy; and cost, schedule, and performance goals
and milestones.
Termination of a Major Research Project. The Rare Symmetry Violating
Processes Project (RSVP) was initially NSB-approved for funding in October 2000, and
was included in the Administration’s FY2005 budget request as a new construction
project. The RSVP was composed of two experiments – to examine the differences in the
behavior of matter and antimatter, and to investigate the relationship between the electron
and the muon. This experiment would involve the incremental use of the existing
Alternating Gradient Synchrotron at Brookhaven National Laboratory. In the fall of 2004,
while the RSVP was in the design phase, an analysis revealed that there could be
significant increases in both construction and operating costs.17 The cost overruns
generated considerable interest by several congressional committees and the international
scientific community. An evaluation was conducted, involving scientific personnel both
internal and external to NSF, in an attempt to resolve the cost increases in various
elements of the project. In August 2005, on the recommendation from NSF management,
the NSB terminated the RSVP. NSF determined that “[C]ontinuing the RSVP project
would lead to the unacceptable loss of opportunities in research in elementary-particle
physics, other areas of physics, and across all disciplines in the [Mathematical and
Physical Sciences] directorate as well as in the construction of large facilities across
NSF.”18 The RSVP underwent a series of phase-out activities.
14 First priority is given to projects under construction. Second priority is for NSB-approved new
starts. There are projects that are classified as being in the readiness stage or recommended for
advancement to the readiness stage. Also, there are projects classified as being under
exploration.
15 The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) may reject or change the NSF’s prioritizations.
16 OMB Circular A-11, Part 3: “Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisitions of Capital Assets” and its
supplement “Capital Programming Guide”.
17 RSVP was to be funded at $145 million for FY2005 through FY2010.
18 Facility Plan, p. 31.

---