I just read the National Institute for Sciences – NIBS – Annual Report.   NIBS is chartered to be “An Authoritative Source of Innovative Solutions for the Built Environment”.  As such, I assume NIBS to be national leader, if not a world leader, with respect to championing the efficient life-cycle management of facilities and other physical infrastructure.

Also, one might expect that all Federal Agencies should be executing on well-defined programs to significantly improve all aspects of design, project delivery methods, construction, operation, and disposal of the built environment.   After all, physical infrastructure is directly linked to our economic and environmental wellbeing.   Lastly, efficient management of the built environment is not “rocket science”, with well documented techniques abundant in literature, case studies, etc.

The fact that virtually not a single Federal Agencies has a definitive Department or Agency-wide best management practice approach for their physical infrastructure portfolio is, however, more than disturbing.

Efficient Management of the Build Environment – Check List

• Organizational support and awareness – Top down and bottom up
• Collaborative, LEAN project delivery methods (IPD – Integrated Project Delivery for major new construction, JOC – Job Order Contracting for repair, renovation, sustainability, and minor new construction)
• Focus upon life-cycle costs versus first costs
• A robust Ontology including standardized cost data
• Adoption of cloud computing and associate integration of all life-cycle management domains (capital planning, construction delivery, cost estimating, maintenance management, space management, building automation, geographical information).
• Quantitative metrics
• Full transparency
• Shared risk/reward for Owners, AEs, Contractors, etc.

While the charter of both NIBS, Capitol Hill members, and all Federal Real Property Owners is clear, are they taking their responsibility as stewards of the built environment seriously?

You tell me?