Summary of Comments

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON
NSF MAJOR FACILITIES GUIDE (MFG) DRAFT, DECEMBER 2020
WITH NSF RESPONSES
July 26, 2021

Cover PageExhibit 2 - Public Cmts Received and NSF Response_2021 MFG Draft for Public Comment.docx
Page 1 of 10

Public Comments on Major Facilities Guide (MFG) December 2020 & NSF Responses
Cmt
#
1.

2.

Sec
Para,
page no.

Source

MFG Language and/or Observation

Comment

NSF Response/Resolution

1.4.4,
1.4-2

NSF
DACS-LFO

“If the TPC for research infrastructure is within
the mid-scale project range as defined by
statue, it is considered mid-scale research
infrastructure throughout its full life cycle.”

Please clarify if the design stage of a
potential mid-scale implementation
project is considered a mid-scale
project and subject to Section 5 of the
MFG.

Accepted.
“Implementation” was added to the
text to clarify mid-scale projects are
defined by the “construction,
implementation, or acquisition”
stage not the “design, operations, or
associated science program costs”.

1.4.6,
1.4-2

NSF
DO

“NSF’s “No Cost Overrun” policy was originally
codified for major facility projects in the Fiscal
Year (FY) 2009 Budget Request to Congress2
which…

This Section needs a sentence that
says, “The implementation of the NoCost Overrun Policy is defined more
fully in Sections 4.2.5.1 and 4.2.5.2.”

Accepted.

The policy has been continually reinforced in
subsequent budget requests to Congress for the
purpose of instilling diligence and rigor in
establishing the Total Project Cost (TPC) at
award and a strong NSF oversight position for
major facility projects.”

July 26, 2021

Page 2 of 10

Public Comments on Major Facilities Guide (MFG) December 2020 & NSF Responses
Cmt
#
3.

Sec
Para,
page no.
1.4.8,
1.4-3

Source

MFG Language and/or Observation

Comment

NSF Response/Resolution

NSF-MPS

“The Science Appropriations Act of 2019
includes the following under NSF’s
Administrative Provisions:
The Director of the National Science Foundation
(NSF) shall notify the Committees on
Appropriations of the House of Representatives
and the Senate at least 30 days in advance of
any planned divestment1 through transfer,
decommissioning, termination, or
deconstruction of any NSF-owned facilities or
any NSF capital assets (including land,
structures, and equipment) valued greater than
$2,500,000.”

The footnote provides an apparent
definition of divestment, which
includes “moth-balling” of a facility. I
would suggest that this definition be
carefully reconsidered to exclude
moth-balling

Accepted.
Footnote 1 was deleted, and the
following paragraph was added to
the end of the section:
“Sections 2.6 and 3.6 of this Guide
discuss the Divestment Stage of the
major facility lifecycle and provides
guidance and procedures associated
with the divestment of NSF-owned
facilities covered by this legislative
language. The divestment of NSF
capital assets valued greater than
$2,500,000 is governed by the
Federal property management
requirements and award terms and
conditions.”

Footnote 1: “Divestment - the partial or
complete transfer of real property or
equipment to another entity’s operational and
financial control (with or without reduction in
project scope), “moth-balling” the facility so
that operations can be restarted at a later date,
or decommissioning. Refer to Section 2.6 of this
Guide for more information on the Divestment
Stage of a facility life cycle.”

July 26, 2021

Furthermore, I would suggest
potentially distinguishing between the
divestment of a FACILITY, as
extensively discussed in this
document) from the more general
“divestment” (getting rid of) “any NSF
capital asset” (which is not really the
subject of the divestment discussions
in this document but is of course
covered (as a separate item connected
by “or”) in the legislative language
quoted in this section.
For example, immediately after the
legislative language quote in 1.4.8, one
could add something like…
In its discussion of the Divestment
Stage of a facility life cycle (in sections
2.6 and 3.6, among others) this
document provides guidance and
procedures relating to the divestment
of NSF-owned facilities covered by this
legislative language. The divestment
of “any NSF capital assets… valued
greater than $2,500,000” is discussed
elsewhere in NSF policy and
procedures.

Page 3 of 10

Public Comments on Major Facilities Guide (MFG) December 2020 & NSF Responses
Cmt
#

Sec
Para,
page no.

Source

2.3

NSF
BFA-LFO

5.

2.5.1,
2.5.1-2

NSF
BFA-LFO

In general, these upgrades and renewals will be
funded from R&RA funds, either from a portion
of the operating funds designed for such
purposes or from separate equipment and
instrumentation programs. Funding for more
significant upgrades (if they exceed the major
facility threshold) may come from the MREFC
account. In that case, the approval process is
the same as that for a new major facility project

6.

2.5.2,
2.5.2-1

NSF
BFA-LFO

Section 2.5.2 Renewal/Recompetition

Update Section 2.5.2
Renewal/Recompetition for alignment
with the new internal Standard
Operating Guideline (SOG).

7.

3.5.2,
3.5.2-1
and
3.5.2-2

NSF
BFA-LFO

Section 3.5.2 Procedures for Renewal or
Recompetition of an Operating Major Facility

Minor administrative updates are
needed to align the MFG with the new
internal Standard Operating Guideline
(SOG). For example, paragraph two
could begin with “In accordance with
internal NSF standard operating
guidance…” and talk about an
“internal” review as opposed to a
panel review. Paragraph one might
have to be moved down and the text
modified to align with the SOG with
regards to an annual operations
review, rather than a special review.

4.

July 26, 2021

MFG Language and/or Observation

Comment

NSF Response/Resolution

Scrub and modify the 2021 MFG to
state: “A strategic assessment of a
project’s priority relative to other
opportunities is made before NSF
considers a request to NSB for
inclusion in a future budget request.”
Delete the underlined phase and
reference Section 1.4.2 MREFC
Threshold.

Accepted.

Accepted.
Sentences were revised to the
following:
“Funding for more significant
upgrades that exceed the major
facility threshold1 require the same
approval process that for a new
major facility project.”
Footnote 1: Refer to Section 1.4.3 of
this Guide for the major facility
threshold.
Accepted.
Section 2.5.2 was revised to include
discussion regarding NSF’s
determination prior to expiration of
O&M award and the triggers for
competition.
Accepted.

Page 4 of 10

Public Comments on Major Facilities Guide (MFG) December 2020 & NSF Responses
Cmt
#
8.

9.
10.

Sec
Para,
page no.
3.5.2,
3.5.2-1
and
3.5.2-2
4.2.5,
4.2.5-1
4.2.5.1
and
4.2.5.2
4.2.5-1

Source

MFG Language and/or Observation

Comment

NSF Response/Resolution

NSF
BFA-DACS

Section 3.5.2 Procedures for Renewal or
Recompetition of an Operating Major Facility

NSF
BFA-LFO
NSF
BFA-LFO

4.2.5 Budget Contingency Planning for the
Construction Stage
4.2.5.1 NSF Policy Positions
4.2.5.2 Introduction

MFG is applicable to both cooperative
agreement and contract awards. This
Section needs to be revised to align it
with FAR.
Change to: “4.2.5 Risk Planning for the
Construction Stage”
Revise as follows:
4.2.5.1 – Implementation of NSF’s No
Cost Overrun Policy.
• Make first paragraph in 4.2.5.2
and the 5 items the lead text for
this Section.
• Add a sentence before the 7 items
that reads “NSF uses the following
practices to implement the five
mechanisms above:”
• Change second sentence in item 1
to read: “The amount of
management reserve (if any) is
determined by NSF and held by
NSF following authorization and
identification of the funding
source.”

Accepted.
The text was revised to reference
the FAR for renewal of contracts for
operating a major facility.
Accepted.
Accepted.

4.2.5.2 - - Introduction to Budget
Contingency. Lead sentence starting
with “Budget contingency is…”
11.

4.6.2,
4.6.2-1

July 26, 2021

NSF
BFA-LFO

During the Construction Stage, the Project
Director, who is responsible for executing and
controlling the project in accordance with the
PEP and the award instrument, reports to the
Program Officer (PO) on a periodic basis
(monthly for MREFC-funded projects and no
less than quarterly in other cases).

Revise to indicate monthly reports for
all major facility project in
construction.

Accepted.
Sentence revised to:
“….on a periodic basis (monthly for
major facility projects and no less
than quarterly in other cases).

Page 5 of 10

Public Comments on Major Facilities Guide (MFG) December 2020 & NSF Responses
Cmt
#
12.

13.

Sec
Para,
page no.

Source

MFG Language and/or Observation

Comment

NSF Response/Resolution

4.6.2,
4.6.2-2

NSF
BFA-LFO

Change underlined wording to: “to the
LFO Liaison a copy of the monthly
project report in a standard format...

Accepted.

4.6.3.3,
4.6.3-2

NSF
BFA-LFO

“For major facility projects in the Construction
Stage, the PO is responsible for providing to the
LFO a written monthly summary of this
information in a standard format provided by
the Head, Large Facility Office (HLFO).”
“Further information and various details of the
BSR process are provided in the BSR Guide, 2
which defines….”

Add the website link in the footnote
for the LFO website.

Accepted.

Footnote 2: See "Business Systems Review
(BSR) Guide” at the NSF Large Facilities Office
website.

July 26, 2021

Page 6 of 10

Public Comments on Major Facilities Guide (MFG) December 2020 & NSF Responses
Cmt
#
14.

Sec
Para,
page no.
4.6.3.4,
4.6.3-3

Source

MFG Language and/or Observation

Comment

NSF Response/Resolution

NSF
BFA-DACS

“For cooperative agreements, NSF conducts an
incurred cost audit for major facility awards at
the end of the award and potentially during
execution of the award based on an annual risk
assessment conducted by the Large Facilities
Office and the Cooperative Support Branch at
NSF. These incurred cost audits are required for
construction awards.”

It should be clear upfront it is required
for construction awards then we
should say it can be used for others
based on risk. Suggest the first two
sentences of the paragraph be revised
to:
“For cooperative agreements, NSF is
required to conducts an incurred cost
audit for major facility awards during
construction and at the end of the
construction award. NSF may conduct
an incurred cost audit for any major
facility during the execution of the
award based on an annual risk
assessment conducted by the Large
Facilities Office and the Cooperative
Support Branch at NSF.”

Accepted.

Recipients should be prepared for such
an audit at any time based on 2 CFR §
200.205-7 of the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost
Principles and Audit Requirements for
Federal Awards and as stated in the
terms and conditions in the
Cooperative Agreement. For contracts,
incurred cost audits are performed in
accordance with in the FAR, the
cognizant Federal Agency procedures,
and terms and conditions of the
contract.

July 26, 2021

Page 7 of 10

Public Comments on Major Facilities Guide (MFG) December 2020 & NSF Responses
Cmt
#
15.

16.

Sec
Para,
page no.
Table
4.6.6.3-3,
4.6.6-8

5,
5-1
through
5-4

July 26, 2021

Source

MFG Language and/or Observation

Comment

NSF Response/Resolution

Trusted CI

“Competency: Information Technology
Description:
• Able to manage information technology
resources, such as personnel, equipment, etc.
that support the project or program.
• Demonstrates knowledge of the three pillars
of information security programs (Governance,
Resources, and Controls) and how to develop
and manage a robust cybersecurity program.”

We are pleased to see knowledge of
the Trusted CI Framework and
cybersecurity programmatics
referenced as a personnel
competency. Consider updating this to
include reference to the Trusted CI
Framework’s fourth pillar (Mission
Alignment) and the Framework
Implementation Guide for Research
Cyberinfrastructure Operators. See,
https://www.trustedci.org/framework.

Accepted.

NSF
BFA-LFO

5. Guidance for Mid-scale Infrastructure
Projects

For alignment with the other TrustCI
recommendations.
Please clarify if the design stage of a
potential mid-scale implementation
project is considered a mid-scale
project and subject to Section 5 of the
MFG.

Accepted.
The following sentence was added to
the first paragraph:
“Similar to major facility projects,
the design and development stages
of a mid-scale project are used to
advance the technical design and
develop the project management
processes to establish a Project
Execution Plan ready for start of
construction/implementation.”
Also, “during the construction stage
(also referred to as
implementation)” was added to the
end of the following sentence: “A
Project Execution Plan (PEP) is
required for all mid-scale projects in
order to document the foundation
for how the project will be managed
by the Recipient.”

Page 8 of 10

Public Comments on Major Facilities Guide (MFG) December 2020 & NSF Responses
Cmt
#
17.

Sec
Para,
page no.
6.3.2.1,
6.3.2-1

Source

MFG Language and/or Observation

Comment

NSF Response/Resolution

Trusted CI

2nd para: “The three pillars of a cybersecurity
program which rest on this foundation are
governance; resources; and controls.”

We recommend NSF update Trusted CI
resource references to point Major
Facilities to the Trusted CI Framework
and the Framework Implementation
Guide for Research Cyberinfrastructure
Operators. While NSF might choose to
reduce the language of section 6.3
substantially by referencing this new
guide, NSF should at least make the
following update:
a. 6.3.2-1, second, third, and fourth
paragraphs. Add reference to the
Framework’s fourth pillar, Mission
Alignment.

Accepted.

3rd para: “This framework is based on the
previously mentioned three pillars of
information security programs: Governance,
Resources, and Controls.4”
4th para: “The three pillars of a cybersecurity
program rely on a project-specific inventory…”

18.

6.3.2.1,
6.3.2-1

Trusted CI

19.

6.3.3.2,
6.3.3-1

Trusted CI

20.

6.3.3.3,
6.3.3-2

Trusted CI

July 26, 2021

Footnote: “4 See, NSF Cybersecurity Center of
Excellence program guidance, e.g.,
https://trustedci.org/guide”
Footnote: “1See, NSF Cybersecurity Center of
Excellence program guidance, e.g.,
https://trustedci.org/guide
“In addition to the Trusted CI guide which is
tailored to the scientific community, the Open
Science Risk Profile Working Group (OSCRP),
has developed and released…”

The three pillars in the 2019 MFG is
based on the 2014 Guide to
Developing Cybersecurity Programs for
NSF Science and Engineering Projects
(trustedci.org/guide). In March 2021,
Trusted CI published the Trusted CI
Framework Implementation Guide for
Research Cyberinfrastructure
Operators. This new guide supersedes
the 2014 guide.
Update footnote 4 to reference
https://www.trustedci.org/framework.
Update the reference to
https://www.trustedci.org/framework/
templates
Correct the OSCRP reference to “Open
Science Cyber Risk Profile (OSCRP)
community project.”
It is missing “Cyber” in the proper
name.

Accepted.
Accepted.
Accepted.

Page 9 of 10

Public Comments on Major Facilities Guide (MFG) December 2020 & NSF Responses
Cmt
#
21.
22.

Sec
Para,
page no.

Source

MFG Language and/or Observation

Comment

NSF Response/Resolution

6.3.5.1,
6.3.5-1

Trusted CI

Footnote: “5 https://trustedci.org/guide

Update footnote 5 to reference
https://www.trustedci.org/framework.

Accepted.

6.3.5.1,
6.3.5-1

Trusted CI

“An information system is a discrete set of
information and related resources (such as
people, equipment, and information
technology) organized for the collection,
processing, maintenance, use, sharing,
dissemination, and/or disposition of
information.8”

Add clarification that “information
systems” includes both traditional
information technologies (e.g., servers,
mobile computing devices) as well as
operational technology (OT), e.g.,
industrial control systems (ICS),
Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) systems.
Rationale: While the MFG references
controls for ICS and SCADA systems in
Section 6.3.5.3, a clarification of the
scope of “information systems” is
warranted.

Accepted.

July 26, 2021

Page 10 of 10