42 U.S.C. § 1862s–2: Oversight of NSF major…

Summary

Requires the Director of the National Science Foundation to tighten oversight and accountability for every major multi-user research facility project from planning to shutdown so taxpayer money is used well. The Director must put scientific results first, make clear who does what across the Foundation, set rules for each phase of a project’s life, and follow best practices for cost and schedule estimates (including GAO and OMB guidance). The Foundation must build staff skills in project and financial management, share lessons learned, keep a Large Facilities Office to advise on policy, management, budgeting, and risk, and name a senior official to oversee these large facilities. Before approving construction, the Foundation must do a full life-cycle cost review and include future operating costs in the President’s budget. Construction cannot start until there is an external budget review that follows GAO guidance, an independent cost estimate, an accounting-systems review (unless a recent one exists), and resolution of major issues. Projects must have regular external reviews, good internal controls, yearly cost reports, and incurred-cost audits at least once during construction (and no more than every 3 years) and at construction completion. Operations must have an independent cost analysis. Contingency funds must follow 2 C.F.R. 200.433, be controlled and tracked by the Foundation, and be reasonable. Award fees must be transparent, and the Director must limit inappropriate spending (for example, alcohol, lobbying, or non-business travel). The Director must brief the listed congressional committees within 90 days after January 6, 2017, and periodically after that, and must notify them within 1 year after January 6, 2017 when certain recommendations are implemented. Definitions: Appropriate committees of Congress — the specific Senate and House commerce, science, and appropriations committees named in the law. Major multi-user research facility project — a facility project costing more than $100,000,000.

Title 42, §1862s–2

The Public Health and Welfare, Source: USLM XML via OLRC

(a)Facilities oversight

(1)In general

The Director of the Foundation shall strengthen oversight and accountability over the full life-cycle of each major multi-user research facility project, including planning, development, procurement, construction, operations, and support, and shut-down of the facility, in order to maximize research investment.

(2)Requirements

In carrying out paragraph (1), the Director shall—

(A)prioritize the scientific outcomes of a major multi-user research facility project and the internal management and financial oversight of the major multi-user research facility project;

(B)clarify the roles and responsibilities of all organizations, including offices, panels, committees, and directorates, involved in supporting a major multi-user research facility project, including the role of the Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction Panel;

(C)establish policies and procedures for the planning, management, and oversight of a major multi-user research facility project at each phase of the life-cycle of the major multi-user research facility project;

(D)ensure that policies for estimating and managing costs and schedules are consistent with the best practices described in the Government Accountability Office Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide, the Government Accountability Office Schedule Assessment Guide, and the Office of Management and Budget Uniform Guidance (2 C.F.R. Part 200);

(E)establish the appropriate project management and financial management expertise required for Foundation staff to oversee each major multi-user research facility project effectively, including by improving project management training and certification;

(F)coordinate the sharing of the best management practices and lessons learned from each major multi-user research facility project;

(G)continue to maintain a Large Facilities Office to support the research directorates in the development, implementation, and oversight of each major multi-user research facility project, including by—

(i)serving as the Foundation’s primary resource for all policy or process issues related to the development, implementation, and oversight of a major multi-user research facility project;

(ii)serving as a Foundation-wide resource on project management, including providing expert assistance on nonscientific and nontechnical aspects of project planning, budgeting, implementation, management, and oversight;

(iii)coordinating and collaborating with research directorates to share best management practices and lessons learned from prior major multi-user research facility projects; and

(iv)assessing each major multi-user research facility project for cost and schedule risk; and

(H)appoint a senior agency official whose responsibility is oversight of the development, construction, and operations of major multi-user research facilities across the Foundation.

(b)Facilities full life-cycle costs

(1)In general

Subject to subsection (c)(1), the Director of the Foundation shall require that any pre-award analysis of a major multi-user research facility project includes the development and consideration of the full life-cycle cost (as defined in section 2 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1998 (42 U.S.C. 1862k note)) in accordance with section 1862n–4 of this title.

(2)Implementation

Based on the pre-award analysis described in paragraph (1), the Director of the Foundation shall include projected operational costs within the Foundation’s out-years as part of the President’s annual budget submission to Congress under section 1105 of title 31.

(c)Cost oversight

(1)Pre-award analysis

(A)In general

The Director of the Foundation and the National Science Board may not approve or execute any agreement to start construction on any proposed major multi-user research facility project unless—

(i)an external analysis of the proposed budget has been conducted to ensure the proposal is complete and reasonable;

(ii)the analysis under clause (i) follows the Government Accountability Office Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide;

(iii)except as provided under subparagraph (C), an analysis of the accounting systems has been conducted;

(iv)an independent cost estimate of the construction of the project has been conducted using the same detailed technical information as the project proposal estimate to determine whether the estimate is well-supported and realistic; and

(v)the Foundation and the National Science Board have considered the analyses under clauses (i) and (iii) and the independent cost estimate under clause (iv) and resolved any major issues identified therein.

(B)Audits

An external analysis under subparagraph (A)(i) may include an audit.

(C)Exception

The Director of the Foundation, at the Director’s discretion, may waive the requirement under subparagraph (A)(iii) if a similar analysis of the accounting systems was conducted in the prior years.

(2)Construction oversight

The Director of the Foundation shall require for each major multi-user research facility project—

(A)periodic external reviews on project management and performance;

(B)adequate internal controls, policies, and procedures, and reliable accounting systems in preparation for the incurred cost audits under subparagraph (D);

(C)annual incurred cost submissions of financial expenditures; and

(D)an incurred cost audit of the major multi-user research facility project in accordance with Government Accountability Office Government Auditing Standards—

(i)at least once during construction at a time determined based on risk analysis and length of the award, except that the length of time between audits may not exceed 3 years; and

(ii)at the completion of the construction phase.

(3)Operations cost analysis

The Director of the Foundation shall require an independent cost analysis of the operational proposal for each major multi-user research facility project.

(d)Contingency

(1)In general

The Director of the Foundation shall strengthen internal controls to improve oversight of contingency on a major multi-user research facility project.

(2)Requirements

In carrying out paragraph (1), the Director of the Foundation shall—

(A)only include contingency amounts in an award in accordance with section 200.433 of title 2, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to contingency provisions), or any successor regulation;

(B)retain control over funds budgeted for contingency, except that the Director may disburse budgeted contingency funds incrementally to the awardee to ensure project stability and continuity;

(C)track contingency use; and

(D)ensure that contingency amounts allocated to the performance baseline are reasonable and allowable.

(e)Use of fees

(1)Sense of Congress

It is the sense of Congress that—

(A)the use of taxpayer-funded award fees should be transparent and explicable; and

(B)the Foundation should implement an award fee policy that ensures more transparency and accountability in the funding of necessary and appropriate expenses directly related to the construction and operation of major multi-user research facilities.

(2)Reporting and recordkeeping

The Director of the Foundation shall establish guidelines for awardees regarding inappropriate expenditures associated with all fee types used in cooperative agreements, including for alcoholic beverages, lobbying, meals or entertainment for non-business purposes, non-business travel, and any other purpose the Director determines is inappropriate.

(f)Oversight implementation progress

The Director of the Foundation shall—

(1)not later than 90 days after January 6, 2017, and periodically thereafter until the completion date, provide a briefing to the appropriate committees of Congress on the response to or progress made toward implementation of—

(A)this section;

(B)all of the issues and recommendations identified in cooperative agreement audit reports and memoranda issued by the Inspector General of the Foundation in the last 5 years; and

(C)all of the issues and recommendations identified by a panel of the National Academy of Public Administration in the December 2015 report entitled “National Science Foundation: Use of Cooperative Agreements to Support Large Scale Investment in Research”; and

(2)not later than 1 year after January 6, 2017, notify the appropriate committees of Congress when the Foundation has implemented the recommendations identified in a panel of the National Academy of Public Administration report issued December 2015.

(g)Definitions

In this section: (1) Appropriate committees of Congress

(2)Major multi-user research facility project

The term “major multi-user research facility project” means a science and engineering facility project that exceeds $100,000,000 in total construction, acquisition, or upgrade costs to the Foundation.

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Editorial Notes

References in Text

section 2 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 1998, referred to in subsec. (b)(1), is section 2 of Pub. L. 105–207, July 29, 1998, 112 Stat. 869, which is set out as a note under section 1862k of this title. Codification Section was enacted as part of the American Innovation and Competitiveness Act, and not as part of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 which comprises this chapter.

Amendments

2021—Subsec. (g)(2). Pub. L. 116–283 added par. (2) and struck out former par. (2) which defined “major multi-user research facility project”.

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Definitions For definitions of terms used in this section, see section 2 of Pub. L. 114–329, set out as a note under section 1862s of this title.

§1862s–2 Oversight of Nsf Major Multi-user Research Facility Projects

Summary

Title 42, §1862s–2

Notes & Related Subsidiaries

Editorial Notes

References in Text

Amendments

Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries

Citations & Metadata