Appendix_1_-_FMD_Standard_Reference_Document_Feb_2016_(003).pdf

ATTACHMENT A

APPENDIX 1

CODE 220 STANDARD REFERENCE DOCUMENT

(SRD) FOR FACILITIES

February 2016

RFP NNG16557109R

CONTRACT TBD

Mission Success Starts with Safety

Supporting the New Age of Exploration

CODE 220 Standard Reference Document (SRD) for Facilities

GSFC Quality Policy

With Customer satisfaction as our primary goal:

GSFC is committed to meeting or exceeding our Customer’s requirements

We achieve excellence in all of our efforts

PREFACE

The CODE 220 Standard Reference Document (SRD) for Facilities documents technical requirements for all constructed real property assets at Goddard Space Flight Center. The primary location referenced is in Greenbelt, MD, but this document is intended to cover all GSFC locations. The document is to be used by all personnel in Code 220, all Directorates, including support service contractors, task-order Architect- Engineers, and others who are involved in the planning, design, construction, and operation/maintenance of facilities.

The agency uses the NASA Directives System to publish and disseminate policy statements and procedures. NPDs, NASA Policy Directives state the WHAT is required to be done to accomplish the agency mission while the NASA Procedural Requirements (NPRs) define HOW it is going to be accomplished. In the facilities world these statements are defined by NPD 8820.2D - Design and Construction of Facilities (dated July 2, 2013) and the NPR 8820.2G – Facility Project Requirements (dated June 5, 2014). Compliance with these directives and procedures is mandatory in the agency.

Familiarity with these documents is essential to the understanding and implementation of this Standard Reference Document.

SRD CHANGE/APPROVAL PROCEDURE

Required changes to the SRD shall be processed as follows based on the indicated criteria:

Administrative/Procedural changes received or generated by the Engineering Branch shall be reviewed with the Branch Head. A recommendation for action will be issued to all of the Branch/ Heads for the Facilities Management Division (FMD) for concurrence. Final approval shall be by the Chief of FMD.

Technical changes received or generated by the Engineering Branch shall be reviewed by the Branch Discipline Lead and the Branch Head. A recommendation for action shall be submitted to the Planning Branch Head, and Operations and Maintenance Branch Head for concurrence. Final approval shall be by the Chief of FMD.

To request a change, use form GSFC 4-35 GSFC CONFIGURATION CHANGE/APPROVAL REQUEST.

Submit the form to Code 224/Branch Head.

http://msc-docsrv.gsfc.nasa.gov/GDMS_docs/forms/GSFC4-35.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. FACILITIES WORK EXECUTION

1.1. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES (CoF) PROGRAM

1.1.1. CoF Program Guidelines

1.1.2. Facility Project Management System (FPMS)

1.1.3. Procedure for NF1509/1510 Submissions to Headquarters

1.1.4. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI)

1.1.5. Economic Analysis

1.1.6. Use of Non-CoF Funds in CoF Projects/Fragmentation

1.2. CENTERED FUNDED (CF) PROGRAM

1.2.1. CF Program Guidelines

1.3. MAXIMO & TASK ORDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TOMS)

1.3.1. MAXIMO

1.3.2. TOMS

1.3.3. Work Request in Support of UCS Related Work

2. CADD

2.1. CADD MANUAL

3. GENERAL TECHNICAL POLICIES

3.1. SAFETY 1st!

3.2. DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN GUIDELINE CRITERIA

3.3. FACILITIES PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

3.4. LESSONS LEARNED INFORMATION

3.4.1. FMD Lessons Learned

3.5. A-E CONTRACTING

3.6. DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY

3.7. PRE-PROJECT PLANNING (P3)

3.8. FACILITY HAZARDS ANALYSIS

3.9. GUIDELINES FOR COST ESCALATION, SIES, AND CONTINGENCY FACTORS

3.9.1. Cost Escalation

3.9.2. Contingency

3.9.3. SIES

3.10. ENGINEERING BRANCH POLICIES

3.10.1. Design Schedules

3.10.4. Environmental Submission Procedures

3.10.5. Design Milestone Reviews

3.10.6. Safety and Environmental, and Security Divisions Review

3.10.7. O&M Reviews

3.10.8. Constructability Reviews

3.10.9. National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) Reviews

3.10.10. Distribution of Documents for Design Review

3.10.11. Review Periods

3.10.12. Reviewer Comments

3.10.13. A-E Review of Comments

3.10.14. Design Review Meetings and Comment Finalization

3.10.15. Annotated Review Comments

3.10.16. Final Design Document Approvals

3.10.17. Electronic Bid Sets (EBS)

3.11. DESIGN

3.11.1. Code Analysis

3.11.2. Drawings

3.11.3. Specifications

3.11.4. Calculations

3.11.5. Estimates

3.11.6. Design Quality Assurance Requirements

3.11.7. Proprietary or Single Source Systems

3.11.8. Space Numbering Guidelines

3.12. VALUE ENGINEERING

3.13. CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.13.1. Historic Preservation

3.14. FACILITY OPERATION & MAINTENANCE

3.14.1. Goddard Operation Maintenance and Repair System (GOMARS)

3.14.2. Outages

3.14.3. Warranties

3.15. SECURITY

3.16. CONSTRUCTION

3.16.1. Preconstruction Conference

3.16.2. Progress Meetings

3.16.3. Construction Scheduling

3.16.4. Partnering Meetings

3.16.5. Submittal Register/Shop Drawing Log

3.16.6. Submittals

3.16.7. Construction Site Representatives (CSR)

3.16.9. Contractor Quality Control (CQC)/ Quality Assurance (QA)

3.16.10. Progress Payments

3.16.11. Safety

3.16.12. Work Freezes/Restrictions in Buildings 1, 3, 13, 14, 24, 31, 32 and Site Excavations

3.16.13. Work Freezes/Restrictions in Buildings 5, 7, 10, 15, 23, 29, and 32

3.16.14. Work in Secure Areas

3.16.15. Work in Specialized Areas

3.16.16. After Hours Work and Lists

3.16.17. Outages

3.16.18. Excavation Permits

3.16.19. Hot Work Permits

3.16.20. Confined Space Entry Permits

3.16.21. Operational Readiness Reviews (ORRs)

3.16.22. Punchlist

3.16.23. Operation and Maintenance Manuals

3.16.24. Commissioning of Systems

3.16.25. Acceptance

3.16.26. Warranties

3.16.27. Tracking of Warranties

3.16.28. ESPC/UESC/ESA Warranties

3.16.29. Project Closeout

3.17. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE

3.17.1. RCM Program

3.18. GENERAL REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

4. MASTER PLANNING

4.1. GSFC FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

4.2. LAND USE

4.3. BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES

4.4. UTILITIES

4.5. TRANSPORTATION

4.6. LANDSCAPING

4.7. MASTER PLANNING REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

5. SITE & CIVIL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

5.1. GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

5.1.1. Rules for Civil Engineering

5.2. SITE DEVELOPMENT

5.2.1. Building Siting

5.2.2. Forest Conservation Areas

5.2.3. Locating Underground Utilities

5.3. SURVEYS

5.3.1. Coordinate System

5.3.2. Control Points

5.3.3. Topographic

5.3.4. As-Built Surveys

5.4. GEOTECHNICAL EXPLORATION

5.4.1. Buildings

5.4.2. Utility Projects

5.4.3. Road Projects

5.4.4. Geotechnical Investigations and Reports

5.4.5. Existing Groundwater Study

5.4.6. Foundations

5.5. GRADING AND DRAINAGE

5.5.1. Grading

5.5.2. Drainage

5.6. VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION

5.6.1. Accessibility

5.6.2. Speed Limits

5.6.3. Streets

5.6.4. Parking Lots

5.6.5. Designated Parking for People with Disabilities

5.6.6. Provision for Fire Lanes/Fire Department Connections

5.6.7. Geometrics

5.6.8. Pavement Sections

5.6.9. Curbs and Gutters

5.6.10. Sidewalks, Ramps, and Stairs

5.6.11. Loading Dock, Trash Dumpster, and Service Vehicle Area

5.6.12. Traffic Control Devices

5.7. FENCING

5.8. LANDSCAPING

5.8.1. Lawns and Grassed Areas

5.8.2. Vegetation

5.9. STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM

5.9.1. Materials & Standards

5.9.2. Hydrologic and Hydraulic Design

5.9.3. Outfall Protection

5.9.4. Environmental Considerations

5.9.5. Manholes and Inlets

5.10. SANITARY SEWERAGE SYSTEM

5.10.1. Collection System

5.10.2. Pumping Stations

5.10.3. Treatment and Neutralization Systems

5.10.4. Degreasers

5.10.5. Manholes

5.11. SITE & CIVIL REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

6. ARCHITECTURAL CRITERIA

6.1. GENERAL SITE DESIGN CRITERIA

6.2. GENERAL BUILDING DESIGN CRITERIA

6.2.1. General Building Heights and Areas

6.2.2. Layout

6.2.3. Economy and Energy Efficiency

6.2.4. Expandability

6.3. FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION

6.4. EXTERIOR BUILDING DESIGN STANDARDS

6.4.1. General Exterior Design Criteria

6.4.2. Exterior Materials

6.4.3. Exterior Doors

6.4.4. Exterior Building Signage

6.4.5. Exterior Walls, Below Grade

6.4.6. Exterior Envelope, Above Grade

6.4.7. Roofing Systems

6.4.8. Roof-Mounted Equipment

6.4.9. Handrails/Guards

6.5. INTERIOR SPACE PLANNING STANDARDS

6.5.1. General Planning Concepts

6.5.2. Arrangement of Exits and Exit Access

6.5.3. Emergency Access

6.5.4. Observation Windows

6.5.5. Accessibility

6.5.6. Elevators and Lifts

6.5.7. Exit Corridors and Stairs

6.5.8. Drinking Fountains

6.5.9. Toilet Rooms

6.5.10. Janitor Closets

6.5.11. Conference Rooms

6.5.12. Administrative Levels and Space Authorizations

6.5.13. Cleanrooms

6.5.14. Computer Data Centers

6.6. STANDARD PLANNING MODULES

6.6.1. General

6.6.2. Planning Modules, Horizontal

6.6.3. Planning Modules, Vertical

6.7. INTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL SYSTEMS

6.7.1. General

6.7.2. Rigid Grid Access Flooring

6.7.3. Interior Partition Systems

6.7.4. Operable Partitions

6.7.5. Doors and Frames

6.7.6. Ceiling Systems

6.8. INTERIOR FINISHES

6.8.1. Interior Design Standards

6.8.2. Finish Materials

6.8.3. Specialty Finishes

6.8.4. Window Blinds

6.8.5. Room Identification Signage

6.8.6. Signage in Common Areas

7. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

7.1. GENERAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

7.2. LOAD CRITERIA

7.2.1. Design Basis

7.2.2. Minimum Dead Loads

7.2.3. Floor Live Loads

7.2.4. Special and Other Loads

7.2.5. Vibration

7.2.6. Reduction in Live Loads

7.2.7. Roof Live Loads

7.2.8. Snow Loads

7.2.9. Wind Loads

7.2.10. Soil Lateral Loads

7.2.11. Rain Loads

7.2.12. Seismic Loads and Design

7.2.13. Road/Bridge Loads

7.3. STRUCTURAL MATERIALS AND DESIGN

7.3.1. Soils and Foundations

7.3.2. Concrete

7.3.3. Aluminum

7.3.4. Masonry

7.3.5. Steel

7.3.6. Wood

7.3.7. Fiber Reinforced Plastics (FRP)

7.4. STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS

7.4.1. Slabs-on-Grade

7.4.2. Elevated Composite Floors on Metal Deck

7.4.3. Grating and Plate

7.4.4. Crane Runways, Rails, and Stops

7.4.5. Roofs

8. MECHANICAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

8.1. GENERAL MECHANICAL REQUIREMENTS

8.1.1. Mechanical System Identification

8.1.2. Energy Conservation Considerations

8.1.3. Asbestos Containing Materials-PACM and ACM

8.1.4. Mechanical Equipment Sound and Vibration Control

8.1.5. Mechanical Equipment Installation, Alignment and Balancing

8.1.6. Thermal Insulation of Mechanical Systems

8.1.7. Design Documentation

8.1.8. Instrumentation for Mechanical Systems

8.1.9. Pipe and Duct Penetrations

8.1.10. Pressure Vessels and Pressurized Systems (PV/S)

8.2. SITE UTILITIES

8.2.1. General

8.2.5. Domestic Water

8.2.6. Fire Protection

8.2.7. Steam Distribution System

8.2.12. Natural Gas Distribution System

8.2.13. Chilled Water Distribution System

8.3. HEATING AND REFRIGERATION PLANTS

8.3.1. Central Heating and Refrigeration Plant (Building 24)

8.3.2. East Campus Heating and Refrigeration Plant (Building 31)

8.3.3. Water Treatment

8.3.4. Plant Control Systems (PCS)

8.4. HEATING VENTILATING AND AIR CONDITIONING (HVAC) SYSTEMS

8.4.1. Design Criteria

8.4.2. HVAC System Selection and Design

8.4.3. HVAC System Equipment

8.4.4. Air Distribution Systems

8.4.5. Building Steam Systems

8.4.6. Building Chilled Water Systems

8.4.7. Building Hot Water and Dual Temperature Water Systems

8.4.8. Refrigerant Piping

8.4.9. Exhaust Systems

8.5. UTILITY CONTROL SYSTEM (UCS)

8.5.1. General Information

8.5.2. Utility Control System (UCS) Program Manager

8.5.3. UCS Working Group

8.5.4. Scope of UCS Work

8.5.5. DDC Functions

8.5.6. EMCS Functions

8.5.7. Electrical Coordination with UCS

8.5.8. Plans and Specifications for UCS Work

8.5.9. Engineering Units for UCS Work

8.5.10. Standard Abbreviations, Unit Display, Point Names, and Display Arrangements

8.5.11. MetaSYS Alarms, Warnings, and Critical Systems

8.6. PLUMBING AND PROCESS PIPING SYSTEMS

8.6.1. Potable Water Piping

8.6.2. Sanitary Drain and Vent Piping

8.6.3. Plumbing Fixtures

8.6.4. Water Heating Equipment

8.6.5. Roof Drains and Rain Leaders

8.6.6. Natural Gas Piping

8.6.7. Compressed Air Systems

8.6.8. Laboratory or Process Gas Systems

8.6.9. Liquid Nitrogen Distribution

8.6.10. Process Vacuum Systems

8.6.11. Deionized or High Purity Water Systems

8.6.12. Process Cooling Water

8.6.13. Central Vacuum Cleaning Systems

8.7. FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEMS

8.7.1. Sprinkler Systems

8.7.2. Standpipe System

8.7.3. Special Fire Suppression Systems

8.7.4. Smoke Control Systems

8.7.5. Fire Pumps and Controllers

8.7.6. Trailer Fire Protection

8.8. MECHANICAL REFERENCES

9. ENERGY MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

9.1. ENERGY MANAGER

9.2. ENERGY Efficiency TEAM

9.3. FMD ENERGY CONSERVATION DESIGN GUIDELINES

9.4. ENERGY SAVINGS PERFORMANCE CONTRACTING (ESPC)/ENERGY SAVINGS

AGREEMENT (ESA)

9.4.1. ESPC

9.4.2. PEPCO ESA

9.5. MANDATORY EQUIPMENT EFFICIENCIES FOR FEDERAL PROJECTS

9.6. ENERGY REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

10. ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

10.1. INTRODUCTION

10.2. GENERAL

10.2.1. Design Philosophy

10.2.2. Electrical Codes and Standards

10.2.3. Telecommunication Codes and Standards

10.3. GSFC ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

10.3.1. Incoming Utility Service

10.3.2. Onsite 34.5KV Distribution

10.3.3. Electrical Substations

10.3.4. Primary Electrical Distribution

10.3.5. Emergency Power System

10.3.6. Building Interior Distribution

10.3.7. One Line Diagrams

10.4. MEDIUM VOLTAGE POWER SYSTEM DESIGN GUIDELINES

10.4.1. Construction Specifications

10.4.2. GSFC Requirements

10.4.2.1. Wiring Methods

10.4.2.2. Medium Voltage Cables, Splices and Terminations

10.4.2.3. Power Ductbanks

10.4.2.4. Power Hand holes and Manholes

10.4.2.5. Exterior Pad-Mount Equipment

10.5. INTERIOR ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION DESIGN GUIDELINES

10.5.1. Construction Specifications

10.5.2. GSFC Requirements

10.5.2.1. Building Service Entrance Configuration

10.5.2.2. Building Service Entrance Equipment

10.5.2.3. Interior Building Distribution Arrangement

10.5.2.4. Branch Circuit Loading

10.5.2.5. Placement of Receptacles

10.5.2.6. Interior Electrical Equipment

10.6. INTERIOR LIGHTING SYSTEMS

10.6.1. Construction Specifications

10.6.2. GSFC Requirements

10.6.2.1. Design Lighting Levels

10.6.2.2. Lighting Control Strategies

10.6.2.3. Lighting Equipment

10.6.2.4. Luminaire Retrofit

10.7. EMERGENCY LIGHTING SYSTEMS

10.7.1. Construction Specifications

10.7.2. GSFC Requirements

10.7.2.1. Design Approach

10.7.2.2. Emergency Lighting Equipment

10.8. EXTERIOR LIGHTING SYSTEMS

10.8.1. Construction Specifications

10.8.2. GSFC Requirements

10.8.2.1. Parking Lot and Roadway Fixtures

10.8.2.2. Poles

10.8.2.3. Wiring Methods

10.9. GROUNDING SYSTEMS

10.9.1. Construction Specifications

10.9.2. GSFC Requirements

10.9.2.1. Building Safety Ground

10.9.2.2. Telecommunications Grounding

10.9.2.3. Instrument Grounding

10.10. LIGHTNING PROTECTION SYSTEMS

10.10.1. Construction Specifications

10.10.2. GSFC Requirements

10.10.2.1. Lightning Protection Equipment

10.11. SMOKE, FIRE DETECTION, AND ALARM SYSTEMS

10.12. SECURITY SYSTEM DESIGN GUIDELINES

10.12.1. Construction Specifications

10.12.2. GSFC Requirements

10.12.2.1. Electrified Lockset EAC Rough-In

10.12.2.2. Panic Hardware with Electric Latch EAC Rough-In

10.12.2.3. Magnetic Lock EAC Rough-In

10.13. TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEM DESIGN GUIDELINES

10.13.1. Construction Specifications

10.13.2. GSFC Requirements

10.13.2.1. Wiring Methods

10.13.2.2. Telecommunications Ductbanks

10.13.2.3. Power Hand holes Manholes

10.13.2.4. Interior Telecommunications

10.13.2.5. Telecommunications Outlet (TO) Configuration

10.13.2.6. Wall Mounted Telephone Outlet (PO) Configuration

10.13.2.7. Placement of Telecommunications Outlets (TO) and Wall Mounted Phone Outlets (PO)

10.14. COMPUTER ROOM DESIGN GUIDELINES

10.14.1. Construction Specifications

10.14.2. GSFC Requirements

10.14.2.1. Mission Critical Computer Rooms

10.14.2.2. Non-Mission Critical Computer Rooms

10.15. SPECIAL SYSTEMS DESIGN GUIDELINES

10.15.1. Construction Specifications

10.15.2. GSFC Requirements

10.16. SHORT CIRCUIT/PROTECTIVE DEVICE COORDINATION STUDIES AND ARC FLASH

HAZARD ANALYSIS

10.16.1. Construction Specifications

10.16.2. GSFC Requirements

10.17. EQUIPMENT DESIGNATIONS

10.17.1. Construction Specifications

10.17.2. GSFC Requirements

11. ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING CRITERIA

11.1. NEPA COMPLIANCE

11.1.1. NEPA Requirements

11.1.2. Environmental Resources Document

11.2. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL

11.2.1. Regulatory Authority

11.2.2. Stormwater Management (SWM) - Regulations under COMAR 26.17.02

11.2.3. Submission to MDE

11.2.4. Stormwater Management Master Plan

11.2.5. Erosion and Sediment Control (ESC) - Regulations under COMAR 26.09.01

11.2.6. Submission to MDE

11.2.7. Plan Development

11.2.8. Dewatering

11.3. FOREST CONSERVATION

11.3.1. Regulatory Authority

11.3.2. Regulations under COMAR 08.19

11.3.3. Roadside Tree Regulations under COMAR 08.07.02

11.3.4. Cutting of Specimen Trees

11.4. WETLAND PERMIT / WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION

11.4.1. Regulatory Authority

11.4.2. Regulations

11.5. AIR QUALITY PERMITTING

11.5.1. Regulatory Authority

11.5.2. MDE Authority

11.6. OIL TANK PERMITTING

11.6.1. Regulatory Authority

11.6.2. Regulations

11.6.3. Closure of Existing Underground Storage Tanks

11.6.4. Criteria for Installation of New Tanks

11.7. ASBESTOS REMOVAL

11.7.1. Regulatory Authority

11.7.2. Coordination with Code 250

11.8. NOISE CONTROL

11.8.1. On-Center Noise

11.8.2. Noise Conveyed Off-Center

11.9. INDUSTRIAL WASTE WATER

11.10. SOLID WASTE

11.11. ENVIRONMENTAL REFERENCES & ACRONYMS

12. APPENDIX

12.1. REFERENCES

12.1.1. NASA Online Directory Information Systems (NODIS)

12.1.2. Facilities Budget Call Handbook

12.1.3. GSFC Relocation Guidebook

1. FACILITIES WORK EXECUTION

1.1. CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES (CoF) PROGRAM

1.1.1. CoF Program Guidelines

Code OJX Facilities Engineer responsible for GSFC The HQ Code OJX Facilities Engineer has functional responsibility for the GSFC CoF Program.

In all matters relating to the CoF Program, they shall be consulted prior to the formal submission of the current FY Performance Plan.

Statutory Limits Statutory limits for the CoF Program begin at $1M. For additional discussion and breakdown of fund and program information refer to the Code 220 Facilities Budget Call Handbook.

Re-programming Authority FMD is authorized to vary the cost and scope of individual Minor Facility Projects (up to and including 25 percent of the AFPCE) within the APP (Approved Program Plan) as indicated in form 800/01. Projects cannot exceed statutory limits. For projects that have been re-programmed at the Center Level, a revised NF1509/1510 shall be created and they shall be provided to HQ. It is not necessary for HQ to approve the revised NF 1509/1510.

Cost and scope changes greater than 25 percent, new projects, and deletion of projects that were included in the APP must be approved in advance by the cognizant Mission Directorate and by HQ’s FRED.

1.1.2. Facility Project Management System (FPMS)

FPMS was a project management and project reporting database system. The FPMS can be used to develop the NF1509 and NF1510.

NOTE:

The FPMS is no longer supported by the Agency. Those who have access to it can still use it to generate NF1509 and NFS 1510, and NF1579. Other means of generating these forms are available in the P:Techpol/FORMS.

1.1.3. Procedure for NF1509/1510 Submissions to Headquarters

The following addresses several of the NF1509/NF1510 data fields in FPMS, submission requirements to HQ, changes to NF1509/NF1510 not requiring submission to HQ, and FPMS Copy to History function. In all cases the PM shall ensure that a signed (or unsigned for Sub A) hardcopy is on file in the Engineering Branch Office. Initial Budget Submission (by Planning Office):

Sub/Rev Block: A.

Approval Block: to be left blank.

35% Design Validation Submission (by Engineering Branch):

Sub/Rev Block: B.

Approval Block: Submitted: 220 Division Chief - Discrete Program, 224 Branch Head – Minor Program.

90% Design (Request for Construction Funds) (by Engineering Branch):

Sub/Rev Block: C.

Approval Block: Submitted: 220 Division Chief - Discrete Program, 224 Branch Head – Minor Program.

Concurrence: As needed.

file://///gsfc-filesrvc.gsfc.nasa.gov/210share/210.I%20-%20Institutional/Code%20210.1/Randy's%20Contract%20Files/Active%20Contracts%20-%20Post%20Award/NAS5-00210%20-%20FaCETS%20-%20Parsons/Modifications/Local%20Settings/220Common/TECHPOL/SRD/Related%20Documents/Code%20220%20Facilities%20Budget%20Call%20Handbook.doc

OJX Concurrence: Scott Robinson Approved: same as OJX Concurrence (for Minor Program), Eugene Hubbard (for Discrete only)

Change to NF1509/NF1510 not requiring submission to HQ:

Cost and Scope change of a Minor Program project do not exceed 25% of AFPCE (statutory limits can never be exceeded).

Sub/Rev Block: D (in this example).

Approval Block: Submitted: 224 Branch Head - Minor Program.

NF1509 Copy to PM /Project File.

Change to NF1509/NF1510 requiring submission to HQ (by Engineering Branch):

Sub/Rev Block: E (in this example).

Approval Block: Submitted – Division Chief - Discrete Program, 224 Branch Head - Minor Program.

Concurrence: As needed.

OJX Approval: same as OJX Concurrence (for Minor Program) (Eugene Hubbard for Discrete only).

1.1.4. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI)

Beginning with the FY03 Program, a PDRI score sheet shall be completed for:

All projects and recorded in the NF 1509.

1.1.5. Economic Analysis

NPD 8820.2E requires an economic analysis be done on Program Direct and Institutional Discrete level projects in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-94. This economic analysis is required to support/justify the project approach. The Corp of Engineers ECONPACK software shall be used to create the analysis.

1.1.6. Use of Non-CoF Funds in CoF Projects/Fragmentation

CoF funded projects cannot be supplemented with other funds, including center funds, except as an outfitting effort. Project Managers shall consult with Engineering Branch Head if other than CoF funds are intended to be used in a CoF project.

1.2. CENTERED FUNDED (CF) PROGRAM

1.2.1. CF Program Guidelines

Statutory Limits A statutory maximum limit for the CF Program is $1M. For additional discussion and breakdown of fund and program information refer to the Code 220 Facilities Budget Call Handbook.

1.3. MAXIMO & TASK ORDER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (TOMS)

1.3.1. MAXIMO

The Engineering Branch, Code 224, manages the MAXIMO system via the FaCETS contract.

MAXIMO is a database used as a tool in the execution of work for all facility projects in FMD.

1.3.2. TOMS

file:///E:/AppData/Local/Microsoft/Windows/Active%20Contracts%20-%20Post%20Award/NAS5-00210%20-%20FaCETS%20-%20Parsons/Modifications/Local%20Settings/220Common/TECHPOL/PDRI/Building%20PROJECT%20SCORE%20SHEET_weighted.doc http://www.hnd.usace.army.mil/techinfo/CPW/PWTB/25301.pdf file://///gsfc-filesrvc.gsfc.nasa.gov/210share/210.I%20-%20Institutional/Code%20210.1/Randy's%20Contract%20Files/Active%20Contracts%20-%20Post%20Award/NAS5-00210%20-%20FaCETS%20-%20Parsons/Modifications/Local%20Settings/220Common/TECHPOL/SRD/Related%20Documents/Code%20220%20Facilities%20Budget%20Call%20Handbook.doc

The Facilities Management Division, Code 220, uses the NASA Task Order Management System to track Requests for Task Proposal (RFTP) and submitted Proposals. It is also used to request and track change orders/modifications to the task.

1.3.3. Work Request in Support of UCS Related Work

Issuance of a UCS Work Request to support a project needs to be done as early as possible in the execution of a standard work request. The Planner or PM that first receives the standard work request needs to make this determination. If UCS work is required to support the work request a separate WR is created to be referred to when the combined mechanical and controls design is being developed. The two WRs will reference each other and each will contain information on the budget allocation for the mechanical and the controls work. The drawings should have coordination notes that clearly note which contractor is responsible for what work and each contractor receives the others’ contract drawing package marked with “For Reference Only.” The COR needs to be notified of pre-construction and progress meetings for the original work request so that the proper coordination of work can be attained.

2. CADD

2.1. CADD MANUAL

The requirements for producing drawings using AutoCAD are specified in the CADD Manual.

FMD has the manual available for all A-E firms working at GSFC. External A-E firms shall follow the latest edition of the A/E/C CADD Standard; the standard can be accessed at https://cadbim.usace.army.mil/Default.aspx. PMs shall direct the A-E firm to contact the FaCETS CADD Team Lead for required drawing templates for use in preparing construction documents at GSFC but are not included in the A/E/C CADD Standard.

3. GENERAL TECHNICAL POLICIES

3.1. SAFETY 1st!

GSFC Safety Homepage

3.2. DEVIATIONS FROM DESIGN GUIDELINE CRITERIA

The SRD guidelines shall be followed unless there is reasonable justification to use design approaches, systems, or details other than what has been indicated. It is recognized that no single source document can be all-inclusive to the requirements, issues, and solutions that will be encountered. If deviations from the requirements of this manual are necessary, they shall be so noted in the Facilities Requirements Document (FRD), NF 1509, Preliminary Engineering Report (PER), or as supplemental information to the construction documents.

If a deviation is necessary, the following process shall be utilized to document the deviation and provide a formal approval process. Requests for deviations shall be directed in writing (email) to the Engineering Branch PM. The requesting individual must document the deviation along with its rationale.

The PM Leads will review the deviation and issue an approval or disapproval between the Code 224 Leads and the Engineering Branch Head.

3.3. FACILITIES PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

NPR 8820.2G – Facility Project Requirements.

220-PG-8800.0.4 Project Work Flow Procedures https://cadbim.usace.army.mil/Default.aspx http://safety1st.gsfc.nasa.gov/

221-PG-8800 Facility Project Planning.

3.4. LESSONS LEARNED INFORMATION

3.4.1. FMD Lessons Learned

Objective:

To create an information system whereby individuals may relate lessons learned experiences pertaining to GSFC facilities work to others for the benefit of all.

Criteria:

At the end of each project, as requested by the project manager, a Lessons Learned session shall take place. The PM shall put together a presentation indicating both good and bad situations that took place during the project and discuss alternative possible outcomes, or ways to incorporate the lessons into future projects.

Lessons Learned input may be submitted by any civil servant, on-site contractor, off-site contractor, or anyone doing business with FMD.

Lessons for submission can be both good and bad, but should provide some benefit in making information available to others.

3.5. A-E CONTRACTING

3.5.1 A-E Contracts

The FAR PART 36 “Construction and Architect-Engineer Contracts” and NASA FAR Supplement Subpart 1836-602-2 provides selection processes for A-E services. Additional guidance is indicated in the FPIG. Agency selection authority for GSFC is delegated to the Center Director.

The Center Director or designee is responsible for establishing an A-E Selection Board.

Excluding FaCETS, Code 220 generally has two types of A-E contract vehicles that are used to perform A-E services for preliminary engineering reports, designs, studies, surveying, materials testing, etc.:

Open-End IDIQ Contracts: generally five or six firms are on-board at any one time.

This allows a pool of A-E firms that have somewhat different specialties (architectural, mechanical, and electrical).

Project Selected Contract: generally only used for very large CoF projects that warrant special selection of an A-E firm (or partnering of firms) to handle the specific project design requirements.

3.5.2 Open-End Delivery Orders

FMD also uses the A-E selection process to establish open-end contracts with one or more A-E firms. The contracts are typically for a Base year award and multiple Option years. The Government, upon expiration of previous Base or Option year, awards the new Option years, provided that the services received have been satisfactory. These contracts permit the design of various projects without requiring the A-E selection process for each project, by issuing TOs under the open-end contact for each design project.

The PM uses the Caf-200 form to initiate the TO process. This form is completed and sent through the A-E contract COR, the Engineering Branch Head, to Procurement. Attached to the form are a Scope of Work, Procurement Request for the design funding, Government estimate, and any other pertinent information to describe the work required, such as a Requirements Document or NF1509 if applicable.

General design requirements for work at GSFC are already included in the A-E Specifications that are a part of the open-end contract, and by reference in this SRD. The scope of work for an individual TO does not need to repeat this information, but should clearly indicate the scope of the design effort for the specific project.

Part of the Caf-200 is a checklist that is helpful in spelling out the scope of work, schedule and deliverables for the project. The PM should fill in the blanks as appropriate to the project, to indicate design duration and review schedule, and to indicate the “design to” construction cost (which is the target for the Engineering Estimate which, when contingencies, SIES, and any other project burden costs are added, will fall within the approved Budget Limit for the Project).

Government estimates for open-end TOs are based on rates for various labor categories that are incorporated into the contract for each A-E firm. The rates were negotiated with each A-E firm independently prior to the contracts being awarded to them. These rates vary between firms, and for each firm, the rates change generally change upon award of new Option years. It is very important that the PM verify that the rates used are those that currently apply. There is a CA assigned for the open-end A-E contracts and can provide current option year rates or other information. Caf-200A may be used to prepare the estimate.

Once Procurement has received the Request with all attachments, they request a proposal from the A-E for the work. When a proposal is received, it is forwarded to the PM to review and prepare a Technical Evaluation. If the fee is not acceptable as originally proposed, fact-finding meetings or negotiations are conducted between the PM, CO, CS, and A-E, and a revised proposal may be requested. When any required negotiations are complete and a technical evaluation recommends accepting the proposal, the CO issues the TO to the A-E, and they may begin work on the project.

3.6. DESIGN FOR SUSTAINABILITY

Incorporates sustainable design practices, maintainable design elements, building commissioning procedures, and safety & security features into facility planning, design, construction, activation, operation & maintenance and de-commissioning to enhance and balance facility life-cycle cost, environmental impact, and occupant health, safety, security and productivity.

EO 13123, Greening of Government Through Efficient Energy Management – 1999 Federal agencies must apply sustainable design principles to sitting, design and construction of new facilities

NPD 8820.3, Facility Sustainable Design

(http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_8820_0003_&page_name= main)

3.7. PRE-PROJECT PLANNING (P3)

Pre-project planning (P3) is a process of developing sufficient strategic information with which the customer can address risk and decide to commit resources to maximize their chance for a successful project. P3 creates a partnership among all project stakeholders that incorporates customer requirements with institutional requirements prior to executing a financial investment.

Integrating P3 into Project Program allows us to make improvements in our system by:

Developing a formal, uniform process for evaluation of projects

Allowing the customer to align with GSFC business goals up front

Allowing the project team (customer, planning, design, O&M, safety, environmental, and security) to work together from the beginning to provide a realistic conceptual design http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_8820_0003_&page_name=main http://nodis.gsfc.nasa.gov/library/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PD_8820_0003_&page_name=main

Allowing the project team to collectively analyze the project and set a budget to address the customer needs

Eliminating the need to de-scope the project due to funding limitations

Spreading accountability through all organizations

Providing the FURB with a through package on which to make an informed investment decision with the funding GSFC receives

The following outline indicates activities for Programmatic and Institutional projects:

Selection of the Team o Customer (with decision making authority) o FMD – Planner, Design PM, Discipline Engineers, Building Manager(s), Construction Manager, Shop Personnel o Safety, Environmental, & Security Office

Selection of Team Leader o Customer w/ Authority or Design PM

Definition of Project Goals o What is the customer trying to accomplish (requirements, not solutions) o Customer schedule requirements o Any code/safety issues that need to be addressed o Miscellaneous concerns (housing, other construction projects nearby)

Define P3 Deliverables and Schedule o List information needed and assign actions required to obtain this information o Set meeting schedule and deliverable schedule

Look at Project Alternatives o Customer/FMD conduct benchmarking (how do others do this work) o Solution(s) from the customer point of view o Alternative institutional solutions

Evaluate Site(s) o Conduct site visit(s) with the entire Team o Record any possible issues to be addressed o Develop Pros & Cons

Conduct Constructability Review o Consider each site and detail possible construction problems

Conduct Risk Assessment o What events may cause project problems/failure o What could go wrong and how

Establish Project Control Guidelines o Identify nice to have, but not essential items o Establish quality requirements

Estimate your Project o Planning estimate, but based on above o Include a contingency

Establish the Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI):

The PDRI is a tool, a comprehensive checklist that helps to measure the degree of scope development in a given project.

A PDRI score of 200 or less has been shown to greatly increase the probability of a successful project.

3.8. FACILITY HAZARDS ANALYSIS

While a project is still in the Requirements Definition phase, the Planner should meet with GSFC

Safety Personnel (code 360) to determine the facility's Facility Risk Indicator (FRI) value. This is a number from 1 - 4 which represents the summation of potential hazards (loss of life, injuries, illness, property damage), with 1 being the highest risk and 4 the lowest. Generally reviewing the project description can do this. Projects with FRI values of 1-3 then require the development of a Preliminary Hazards List (PHL) and the documenting of hazards in a Preliminary Hazards Analysis (PHA). This study will look at such aspects of a finished project as employee exposure to hazardous chemicals, presence of dangerous equipment, etc. A GSFC Safety engineer will be available for consultation, however, funding for development of the PHL and PHA by an A-E must be provided by FMD. Based upon review of the PHA and PHL, a decision is made by Safety Management as to whether a System Safety Program Plan (SSPP) is required which is comprised of other hazard analyses. In the end, potential facility hazards are documented and addressed with a plan of elimination, control, or acceptance of each.

The GSFC Safety Division can provide much more detail on the required analyses and approximate timelines of each phase of the Facility Hazards Analysis. They should be consulted with early so that the project budget can account for hazard analysis/reports that may be required.

3.9. GUIDELINES FOR COST ESCALATION, SIES, AND CONTINGENCY

FACTORS

3.9.1. Cost Escalation

The USACE ECONPACK software provides the following formula: RDR ≈ NIR - INF

REAL DISCOUNT RATE ≈ NOMINAL INTEREST RATE - EXPECTED INFLATION.

OMB Circular A-94, Appendix C provides the RDR and NIR rates early each calendar year.

3.9.2. Contingency

Construction contingency factor is generally 5-10 percent, but shall be based on project indefinites.

A 10 percent contingency factor on all CoF minor program and Discrete utility projects which have the potential to be affected by mission freezes, and for other projects where the complexity justifies this level. Cost estimates shall provide a minimum of 5 percent on all Discrete new construction or renovation for which there is no potential to be affected by mission freezes.

Contingency factors greater than 5 percent may require justification to NASA HQ.

3.9.3. SIES

Supervision, Inspection, and Engineering Services (SIES) factor on CoF projects is generally 5.5 percent, but shall be based on the level of services required.

3.10. ENGINEERING BRANCH POLICIES

3.10.1. Design Schedules

CoF designs shall be 35 percent complete by May 15, two years preceding the Project Year, i.e., a FY03 Project should be 35 design percent complete by May 15, 2001.

The purpose of this is to validate the CoF budget for final submission to HQ by May 15 in support of the Congressional budget cycle, to provided adequate time to apply value-engineering processes in the design stage, and to improve the design quality by ensuring adequate time is available for technical reviews during design.

The 100 percent design completion date needs to allow for a construction contract award by the end of the second quarter of the project Fiscal Year. This is contingent on receipt of HQ authority to advertise and receipt of construction funds in a timely manner.

3.10.2. Project Manager (PM)

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a094/a094.html#ap-c

A member of the Code 224 Engineering Branch that is given the majority role in bringing a facility project to completion. Some specific responsibilities of PMs include:

Serving as the COR

Responsible to ensure that the construction Site Representatives assigned to the project follows through with pro-active quality assurance efforts.

Providing project management to achieve all project goals

Maintaining contact with the representatives of the Customer organization

Overseeing the performance of the design A-E firm

Coordinating design reviews with the Project Team

Interfacing with HQ during design and construction

Participating in the facility Final Inspection/Acceptance

Providing appropriate paperwork to Code 210

Preparing monthly status reports and presenting at DSR

Coordinating correspondence, meeting minutes, and telecommunications among the Project Team

Coordinating design and construction changes

Coordinating total space planning for building occupants

Assuring that all applicable permit requirements for Federal, State, and Local governments are satisfied

Coordinating shop drawing reviews and approvals

Providing a complete and operational facility

3.10.3. Acquisition Strategy

The PM shall recommend the acquisition strategy to the Branch Head after receiving the project.

The Engineering Branch Head shall provide final approval on acquisition strategy basing the decision on PM’s recommendation, advisement of the Section Head, FMD/GSFC goals with regards to Procurement set-aside programs, Acquisition Strategy Panel considerations, and other Division factors.

Determination should be made as early in the design development as possible to account for variability in potential cost implications, etc.

3.10.4. Environmental Submission Procedures

As stated in SRD Section 12.1.1, all project submissions to environmental regulatory agencies shall be made by, or through coordination with the FMD Environmental Engineer with appropriate coordination with the MEMD, Code 250. Some permit submittals can be made early in the project design phase and some require near-complete plans. Therefore, early coordination with the Environmental Engineer is important. A NEPA assessment can be started while the project is still in the planning phase. Stormwater Management, Erosion & Sediment Control, Wetland, and Forest Conservation submissions can be made initially when a preliminary site plan is developed, with a later follow-up of final plans. Initial Air Quality submissions for combustion units (e.g. boilers, generators, etc.) should be made when the general size and expected usage requirements (e.g. 500 kW generator to be used 50 hrs/yr) are known. For equipment that emits Toxic Air Pollutants (COMAR 26.11.15.11-12), the exact equipment must be known to obtain Permits to Construct. For Oil tank Permit to Construct, submissions can be made when the design of the tank is complete.

All CoF projects should be checked off against the Environmental Checklist and submitted to the

Environmental Engineer, to verify whether any environmental submissions will be required.

FMD-100 Environmental Checklist is used.

3.10.5. Design Milestone Reviews

For CoF projects design reviews shall be conducted at the 35, 60, and 90 percent stages.

For CF projects with No Formal Design, no design review shall be conducted.

For CF projects valued $0 - $100K, design reviews shall be conducted at the 90 percent stage.

For CF projects valued $100K - $250K design reviews shall be conducted at the 60 and 90 percent stages.

For CF projects valued $251K - $1,000K design reviews shall be conducted at the 35, 60, and 90 percent stages.

If a 90 percent design submission is made, and the PM concludes that some or all areas have not been fully developed, and therefore an additional submission and review is required, the PM shall make arrangements for this to be done.

3.10.6. Safety and Environmental, and Security Divisions Review

For CoF level projects the Medical and Environmental Division shall be included in all milestone submittals and reviews of construction documents.

For CF level projects, the Safety and Environmental Divisions shall review the documents at the 90 percent design stage only for projects valued at $75,000 and greater. For projects less than $75,000, the Safety and Environmental Division shall only review if the PM warrants that the project is complex (with regards to safety code issues), or environmental impacts are suspected (generally the Environmental Checklist will have indicated potential impacts), or the WR was initiated by the S&E Division, or other circumstances requiring S&E Division input and review.

Note: for CF projects the S&E Divisions receives a hardcopy of each WR 16-48 form in addition to having access to the Work Request system electronically. Through these processes the S&ED may request or otherwise provide input or review on a WR that might not have been sent down to them for review.

For both CoF and CF, routing drawings to the Safety and Environmental Divisions does not obtain Security Division review. The PM should send a separate set to the Security Division when their review is necessary. The following are some conditions when Security Division review is necessary: change or breaches of the perimeter fence, computer room security, exterior doors, key cards, cipher locks, pushbutton locks, and any special condition where the PM needs Security Division input or review.

3.10.7. O&M Reviews

The O&M Branch shall review designs at the formal milestone stages.

3.10.8. Constructability Reviews

Projects shall be reviewed for constructability at every Milestone review. Constructability is not a separate or distinct review. Constructability review is an approach of viewing the drawings from the perspective of the construction aspects. Is it buildable? Are systems/spaces coordinated between disciplines? Can it be built in a different way that provides savings in cost, schedule, or quality, and still meet the project requirements? Are the construction and/or components applicable to the region, commodities, and skills available? Is the sequencing of the construction the most effective/efficient to minimize impacts on the facility occupants/customer operations?

The PM must view the project from the construction perspective at every milestone review.

Others, especially those who have vested interest in minimizing impacts to existing operations (Building Managers, FOM, and Customer) should allocate sufficient resource to consider the constructability aspects.

3.10.9. National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) Reviews

Project Plans Submission Requirements, 10/3/91, NCPC Policy Document In accordance with NCPC “Project Plans Submission Requirements”, GSFC is required to submit plans and other materials to the Commission for 1) building construction or renovation, with or without related site improvements; 2) site development, such as grading, landscaping, street and road extensions and improvements involving changes in cartway configurations, and surface parking.

Waivers may be requested where the project submitted for review has:

1) Unique or special character or qualities, such as extraordinarily limited size and/or scope, that make certain elements of the required materials unnecessary;

2) Been sufficiently documented in prior submissions with materials that remain current;

3) Unique implications necessitating the submission of specialized materials.

Exceptions to this policy (i.e., the Commission has determined that plans need not be submitted) include where:

1) The replacement of walks, roadways, and parking areas involves no change in the location or the existing character or extent of the improvement;

2) The rehabilitation and improvement of buildings and structures involve no change in the existing character, predominant use, or extent of the building or structure;

3) The replacement of trees, shrubs, and other plant materials, including changes in species, involves no change in the existing character of the site;

4) Replacement (excluding relocations or extensions) of underground utility lines such as pipes and cables (excluding pumping stations and treatment facilities) will not necessitate removal of existing trees or changes in the natural topography, or perpetuate or create an adverse environmental impact.

GSFC interpretation of the above stated NCPC requirements are as follows:

It is understood that NCPC is mainly interested in Exterior type projects that have an impact to the visualization of the Center and the surrounding community, and the safety and wellbeing of the adjacent community. As stated, it shall be GSFC policy to primarily submit these types of projects to NCPC.

Waivers:

1) GSFC will not submit individual project waiver requests for projects of limited size and/or scope.

2) GSFC will document with NCPC, a Master Plan, which indicates the anticipated development of the Center, including copies of “Determination of Eligibility Historic Standing Structures” and “Historic Preservation Plan Spacecraft Magnetic Test Facility, Building 305.”

3) It is not anticipated that GSFC would have any waivers that would require submission of specialized materials.

Exceptions:

1) GSFC will use the exception for the replacement of walks, roadways, and parking areas, including those projects which do add parking areas or other new sidewalk improvements.

2) GSFC will use the exception for the rehabilitation and improvement of buildings and structures which involve no change to the existing character, predominant use, or extents.

3) GSFC will use the exception for replacement of trees, shrubs, and other plant material which do not change the character of the site. GSFC uses only native plants that are hardy to the region, and therefore expects no submissions for this type of work.

4) GSFC will use the exception for replacement of underground utilities, including those projects which include relocations or extension.

GSFC will submit all of the following projects:

1) Projects which are clearly visible to the adjacent community through breaks in the GSFC buffer (see Buffer Breaks below), and which do not conform to the architectural character and palette of colors, materials, and styles of existing facilities at GSFC.

2) Projects which would alter the GSFC forestation buffer.

3) Projects which have the potential for impact to the Environment, especially with regards to the safety and wellbeing of the adjacent community.

Submittal Milestones:

For projects requiring submission, submission shall be made at:

PER projects: @ 60 percent PER, @ 30 percent DESIGN Non-PER projects: @ 100 percent Requirements Document, @ 30 percent DESIGN

Visible and Character Impacts

Forestation Buffer Impacts

Environmental Impacts

SUBMITTAL

60 % PER

or

100 % RD 35 % DESIGN

Y Y or N Y or N Y Y

N Y Y or N Y Y

N N Y Y N

Submittal Requirements:

For projects that are submitted to NCPC, the Planner and PM should carefully review the NCPC document and best decide how to meet the submittal requirements. There are items that NCPC requires that are out of the normal, in terms of both format and content, from our normal project documents. NCPC has indicated to NASA that what is of primary interest are brief, succinct submissions, showing plan, section, elevation, project narrative which addresses the environment, and description of the project, generally not more than 5 or 6 drawings. Early consultation with NCPC is recommended in the Planning Phase, before any submission occurs.

Buffer Breaks The following have been identified as clearly visible breaks in the GSFC buffer:

Building 1 - east facade Building 3/13 - west facade Building 8 - south facade Building 9 - entire Building 10 - northern, eastern, & southern facades Building 15 - entire Building 16W - western facade Building 17 - eastern facade Building 27, 27A, 27C - entire Building 29 - northern, eastern, & southern facades Building 30 - south facade Building 31 - south facade Building 32 - entire Building 33 - entire Building 79 - entire

Building 86 - entire Building 88 - entire Building 97 - entire Area 100 - entire Building 201 - entire Building 207 - entire Building 208 - entire Building 209 - entire Building 210 - entire Building 215 - entire Building 303 - entire

Guidelines and Submission Requirements for Antennas on Federal Property in the National Capital Region, 11/6/97, NCPC Policy Document

Guidelines for Design:

GSFC PMs shall review the NCPC document and comply with Section 2 design recommendations where possible. The document may be found in the FMD Technical Library, in a binder called “NCPC.”

Submittal Milestones:

Submittal milestones…