NASA MUST CUT, SAYS GAO

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>

NASA NEEDS TO CUT BACK, SAYS GAO
The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently found that NASA's plans 
for reducing its infrastructure will not meet the agency's cost-cutting 
goals. NASA, like many other federal agencies, is under severe 
budgetary pressures, and the agency plans to absorb its most recent 
reductions by cutting infrastructureÑpeople, facilities, equipment, 
business processes, and information systems.
GAO concluded, "NASA's current facility closure and consolidation plans 
will not fully achieve the agency's goal of decreasing the current 
replacement value of its facilities by about 25 percent (about $4 
billion in 1994 dollars) by the end of fiscal year 2000. More 
importantly, these plans will not result in substantial cost reductions 
by that date." Planned facilities reductions (as of March, 1996) 
totaled $2.8 billion, but NASA officials contend that the $4 billion 
goal was a "stretch" from the beginning.
To overcome NASA's inertia, GAO noted, "NASA and DOD [Department of 
Defense] officials have suggested that a process similar to the one 
used by the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission may 
ultimately be needed to adequately deal with the political sensitivity 
and cost issues that inevitably accompany consolidation and closure 
decisions. Given NASA's limited progress to date, further opportunities 
to reduce infrastructure and the agency's lack of control over some 
barriers to further reductions, Congress may wish to adopt the idea of 
having such a process if NASA's efforts fail to show significant 
progress in the near future in consolidating and closing facilities."
The DOD base closure process relies upon a commission to make 
recommendations and take the political heat for cutbacks that often 
cause host communities significant economic hardship. Once the 
recommendations are made and submitted by the President, Congress can 
only vote them up or down as a whole.
For starters, GAO recommends, "To help determine the need for an 
independent process to facilitate closures and consolidations of NASA 
facilities, Congress may wish to consider requiring NASA to submit a 
plan outlining how it intends to meet its goals for a reduced 
infrastructure through fiscal year 2000. Such a plan should include 
estimated cost reductions resulting from specific facility closures and 
consolidations."
NASA headquarters responded, "The DOD Base Closure process that looks 
at thousands of bases is not necessarily appropriate for NASA, with 
fewer than 20 installations."
GAO also found that environmental contamination at NASA facilities, as 
with the military, could hamper disposition of property: "NASA official 
do not yet fully know what the cleanup requirements will be and lack a 
policy for identifying other responsible parties and sharing cleanup 
costs." Estimates range from a model-based cost of $1.5 billion to a 
$636 million total compiled from NASA field office figures. The latter, 
however, does not include all properties. Furthermore, reports GAO, 
"officials at several centers believed the cost [of cleaning of 
property for transfer] could be as much as two to five times higher 
than if NASA were to retain the property. The higher cost would occur 
if NASA cleaned up facilities to meet more stringent standards that 
might be required for disposal."
"NASA Infrastructure: Challenges to Achieving Reductions and 
Efficiencies," GAO/NSIAD-96-187, September, 1996. Individual GAO 
reports may be requested, free of charge, by calling 202/512-6000.