Subcommittees Consider Recommendations for NSF Project Management Reform
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Science, Space, and Technology’s Subcommittees on Research & Technology and Oversight held a joint hearing entitled, “A Review of Recommendations for NSF Project Management Reform.” The goal of this hearing was to review recommendations made by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) in their recent report, National Science Foundation Use of Cooperative Agreements to Support Large Scale Investment in Research.
Several years ago, the National Science Foundation (NSF) Office of Inspector General (OIG) began raising concerns over NSF’s policies and practices for awarding and managing large construction projects. Since then, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee has held several hearings regarding the OIG’s concerns and NSF’s responses. The NAPA review was commissioned last year by the NSF in collaboration with the National Science Board as a 3rd party independent review of NSF’s policies and practices.
The panel of witnesses who testified included: Ms. Cynthia Heckmann, Project Director, National Academy of Public Administration, Dr. Richard Buckius, Chief Operating Officer, National Science Foundation, and Ms. Allison Lerner, Inspector General, National Science Foundation.
Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) of the Subcommittee on Research and Technology said, “I am hopeful that this report will serve not just to strengthen NSF’s business practices for large projects, but also to smooth the way toward greater trust between the OIG and NSF management – both of whom I’m sure have the best interests of the scientific community and taxpayers in mind.”
Members and witnesses agreed that the NAPA recommendations would help improve NSF’s planning and oversight of large facilities. They discussed the need for NSF to move ahead as quickly as possible to implement the NAPA recommendations, but also, under constrained budgets, to weigh the costs against the anticipated benefits of different recommendations.
Ranking Member Don Beyer (D-VA) of the Subcommittee on Oversight said in his prepared statement for the record, “I am a strong advocate of the National Science Foundation and their efforts to identify and discover new scientific innovations. But the pursuit of these cutting-edge scientific endeavors needs to be managed effectively and efficiently. Large programs deserve substantial oversight and financial management to help keep key projects on track and moving forward as planned.”
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in her prepared statement for the record, “I believe we can all agree that planning, building, and managing large, complex, one-of-a-kind research facilities is a challenging task for even the most experienced organizations and project managers. However, such facilities are central to the National Science Foundation’s mission, ‘to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense.’ The NAPA report represents a very thoughtful and thorough review of NSF’s use of cooperative agreements for large-scale investments.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article