1. FIMS Workshop June 2-6, 2008 Jolie Macier

2. A subcommittee of individuals comprised of Field Office users, including DOE contractor personnel, that recommend continuous improvement to the system. All FAC recommendations are presented to the FDDC for final approval/disapproval. FAC Update, June 2008

3. People who are willing to take the Time to be sure FIMS is most useful to the widest possible audience while maintaining the intent of the database FAC Update, June 2008

4. A corporate board that represents the Headquarters program secretarial offices that funded the development of FIMS. FDDC provides the guidance and direction of FIMS by making all final decisions regarding system policy and enhancements.  Dan Sze, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy  Ray Won, Environmental Management  Gary Horn, Office of Management  Ann Walls, National Nuclear Security Administration  John Yates, Science FAC Update, June 2008

6. Requestor completes Change Request Form Submit RFC to FAC chair FAC Action via monthly conference calls FDDC Action Implementation FAC Update, June 2008

8.  15 requests  Data elements added  Data elements removed  Definition changes FAC Update, June 2008

9.  07-08 – Add data element “Lease Authority Indicator” ◦ FRPC requirement  07-10 – Remove “Design Use” data element ◦ FRPC requirement  07-11 – Modify Energy Consuming fields ◦ EO 13423 FAC Update, June 2008

10.  07-07 – Nuclear Facility Maintenance ◦ DOE O 433.1A  07-09 – “Status Utilization”  “Utilization” ◦ To match FRPC intent FAC Update, June 2008

11. The ratio of occupancy to design capacity based on the current usage code, expressed as a percentage.  Note that utilization is independent of status and must be reported for all status designations. Facilities that are fully shutdown will generally have a utilization of zero. However, because the reported “Status” is the predominate status, a facility that is 51 percent shutdown and 49 percent operating would be properly be reported as “Shutdown” but the “Utilization” would be 49 percent (if the operating portion is fully utilized). FAC Update, June 2008

12. The ratio of occupancy to design capacity based on the current usage code, expressed as a percentage.  Note also that utilization is not a reflection of space assignment but rather a measure of how “full” the space is. As an example, if a building with four floors is fully assigned to an organization but one floor is empty with the other three floors fully utilized, the utilization would be 75 percent.  For programmatic facilities such as laboratories or accelerators, the utilization can be considered to be 100 percent if the mission requires 100 percent of the facility, even though there may be times when the facility is not fully utilized, or even unutilized. FAC Update, June 2008

13.  Non-programmatic facilities with intermittent use ◦ “For property that is required to support the mission but whose use might be irregular or periodic, the utilization can be considered to be 100 percent if the mission requires 100 percent of the facility. These special use properties may experience periods of down time, yet continue to be considered 100 percent utilized.”  Occupancy does not necessarily mean people; change to: ◦ “The ratio of actual usage to design capacity based on the current usage code, expressed as a percentage.” or add a note: ◦ “Occupancy refers to the use capacity and does not have particular relevance to human occupants.” FAC Update, June 2008

14.  Asset Utilization Index (AUI) calculation impact (references: RPAM, the Jul 28, 2004, Rispoli memo, “Guidance – Asset Utilization Guidance,” the FIMS Data Element Dictionary, dated 04/24/07, and FIMS Reports such as 082 and 093)  “Optimum use” notion is not addressed (references: 41 CFR Chapter 102, 102-75.40 through 102- 75.55 and the 2004 Rispoli memo)  The FAC acknowledges that the definition allows discretion with respect to the calculation method, as suggested by the FRPC. FAC Update, June 2008

15.  08-01 – NNSA Transformation Activities ◦ Funding Source ◦ FY Priority Score ◦ FY Priority Rank ◦ Total Estimated Cost – Disposition ◦ Excess Deferred Maintenance Reduction ◦ Excess Yearly S&M Costs ◦ Candidate for Transfer ◦ Contaminated  08-04 – Remove Summary/Detail Indicator FAC Update, June 2008

16.  08-02 – New Usage Code “Training Venue”  08-05 – Add Costworks indicator to RPV flag  08-03 – New usage code for Greenhouse FAC Update, June 2008

18.  08-07 – NNSA “Enduring” field ◦ Facilities and infrastructure that are projected to remain operational beyond the planning period FY2018  08-08 – NNSA Transformation fields for new construction ◦ Add selection choices to Building Status ◦ Project Number ◦ Construction Funding Type ◦ Planned Year Occupancy ◦ Planned Year Acquired ◦ Total Project Cost FAC Update, June 2008

19.  07-12 – 1-click report for SC TYSP  07-13 – RPV model for small buildings ◦ < 500 sqft ◦ Metal framed ◦ Prefabricated ◦ On a concrete slab or raised foundation, with or without utilities ◦ Used to protect equipment or house mission critical communication devices FAC Update, June 2008

22. Mark Gordy & Gayle Smith FAC Update, June 2008

23.  Jolie Macier, Fermilab, Chairperson  Carol Booth, SPRO  Sharon Campbell, Savannah River  Roger Johnson, ORISE  Jane Nations, Y-12  Laura Troche, Chicago Service Center  Jerome Williams, SPRO FAC Update, June 2008

24. Carol Booth Sharon Campbell Laura Troche Jerome Williams FAC Update, June 2008

25.  Represent FIMS community interests  2-year term  Monthly conference call  Minutes preparation & distribution FAC Update, June 2008

26. Questions? Volunteers? Thank You! FAC Update, June 2008