Subcommittee Examines Management of NSF’s Large Facilities
(Washington, DC) – Today the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing to examine the management and operations of Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) projects at the National Science Foundation (NSF).
As the primary federal agency supporting basic science research, NSF plays a key role in the construction and operation of major research facilities that extend the boundaries of science, engineering, and technology. The MREFC account was established as a separate budgetary account in 1995 to fund projects whose construction costs exceed 10 percent of the annual budget of the sponsoring research directorate. To qualify for an award from the MREFC account, a project must "offer the possibility of transformative knowledge and the potential to shift existing paradigms in scientific understanding, engineering processes and/or infrastructure technology." There are five projects currently at different stages of construction for a total MREFC FY 2012 budget of $197 million.
Congress last intervened in the MREFC process the early 2000s due to concerns about the adequacy of planning, management, and oversight within the MREFC account. In response, NSF created the role of Deputy Director for Large Facilities, established a long term roadmap for major research infrastructure projects, and involved the National Science Board (NSB) in the process for identifying and approving construction and operations of these projects. The process has continued to evolve with significant changes made as recently as 2010.
“It’s been about 10 years since this Committee formally reviewed how NSF manages and oversees its large facilities over their full lifecycle, and since then NSF has implemented many changes to the MREFC process, including changes we required in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. Overall, I am very pleased with how far the agency has come in strengthening management and oversight of its large facilities. In particular, I think the National Science Board becoming actively engaged in prioritizing and approving projects from the very early stages was a key step forward,” said Ranking Member Lipinski.
Members and witnesses discussed how potential new large research facilities are selected and prioritized for funding; what steps projects must pass to make it into the MREFC budget request; the role of NSB in each of these steps; and finally, the definition and significance of project contingency funds and how they are calculated.
“The NSF Inspector General has raised some reasonable concerns about the oversight and management of project contingency funds. I think there are good arguments on both sides of these issues, and we will continue to follow the progress of discussions between the IG and NSF management,” concluded Lipinski.
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article