[House Report 114-619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


114th Congress }                                        { Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session    }                                        { 114-619

======================================================================
 
             NSF MAJOR RESEARCH FACILITY REFORM ACT OF 2016

                                _______
                                

 June 13, 2016.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

     Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and 
                  Technology, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 5049]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom 
was referred the bill (H.R. 5049) to provide for improved 
management and oversight of major multi-user research 
facilities funded by the National Science Foundation, to ensure 
transparency and accountability of construction and management 
costs, and for other purposes, having considered the same, 
report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that 
the bill as amended do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
Committee Statement and Views....................................     4
Section-by-Section...............................................     8
Explanation of Amendments........................................    10
Committee Consideration..........................................    10
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch.....................    10
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the 
  Committee......................................................    10
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives............    10
Duplication of Federal Programs..................................    10
Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings..............................    11
Federal Advisory Committee Act...................................    11
Unfunded Mandate Statement.......................................    11
Earmark Identification...........................................    11
Committee Estimate...............................................    11
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate...    11

    The amendment is as follows:
    Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act 
of 2016''.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

  In this Act:
          (1) Director.--The term ``Director'' means the Director of 
        the Foundation.
          (2) Foundation.--The term ``Foundation'' means the National 
        Science Foundation established under section 2 of the National 
        Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1861).
          (3) Major multi-user research facility.--The term ``major 
        multi-user research facility'' means a science and engineering 
        infrastructure construction project that exceeds the lesser of 
        10 percent of a Directorate's annual budget or $100,000,000 in 
        total project cost that is funded in the major research 
        equipment and facilities construction account, or any successor 
        thereto.

SEC. 3. MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF LARGE FACILITIES.

  (a) Large Facilities Office.--The Director shall maintain a Large 
Facilities Office. The functions of the Large Facilities Office shall 
be to support the research directorates in the development, 
implementation, and assessment of major multi-user research facilities, 
including by----
          (1) serving as the Foundation's primary resource for all 
        policy or process issues related to the development and 
        implementation of major multi-user research facilities;
          (2) serving as a Foundation-wide resource on project 
        management, including providing expert assistance on 
        nonscientific and nontechnical aspects of project planning, 
        budgeting, implementation, management, and oversight;
          (3) coordinating and collaborating with research directorates 
        to share best management practices and lessons learned from 
        prior projects; and
          (4) assessing projects during preconstruction and 
        construction phases for cost and schedule risk.
  (b) Oversight of Large Facilities.--The Director shall appoint a 
senior agency official as head of the Large Facilities Office whose 
responsibility is oversight of the development, construction, and 
transfer to operations of major multi-user research facilities across 
the Foundation.
  (c) Policies for Large Facility Costs.----
          (1) In general.--The Director shall ensure that the 
        Foundation's polices for developing and maintaining major 
        multi-user research facility construction costs are consistent 
        with the best practices described in the March 2009 Government 
        Accountability Office Report GAO-09-3SP, or any successor 
        report thereto, the Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200, and 
        the Federal Acquisition Regulation as appropriate.
          (2) Cost proposal analysis.--
                  (A) General requirement.--The Director shall ensure 
                that an external cost proposal analysis is conducted 
                for any major multi-user research facility.
                  (B) Resolution of issues found.--The Director, or a 
                senior agency official within the Office of the 
                Director designated by the Director, shall certify in 
                writing that all issues identified during the cost 
                analysis, including any findings of unjustified or 
                questionable cost items, are resolved before the 
                Foundation may execute a construction agreement with 
                respect to the project.
                  (C) Transmittal to congress.--The Director shall 
                transmit each certification made under subparagraph (B) 
                to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology of 
                the House of Representatives, the Committee on 
                Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, 
                the Committee on Appropriations of the House of 
                Representatives, and the Committee on Appropriations of 
                the Senate.
          (3) Incurred cost audits.--The Director shall ensure that an 
        incurred cost audit is conducted at least biennially on any 
        major multi-user research facility, in accordance with 
        Government Auditing Standards as established in Government 
        Accountability Office Report GAO-12-331G, or any successor 
        report thereto, with the first incurred cost audit to commence 
        no later than 12 months after execution of the construction 
        agreement.
          (4) Contingencies.--
                  (A) In general.--Except as provided for in 
                subparagraph (C)(ii), the Foundation shall--
                          (i) provide oversight for contingency in 
                        accordance with Cost Principles Uniform 
                        Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200.433, or any 
                        successor thereto, and the Federal Acquisition 
                        Regulation as appropriate, except as provided 
                        in this paragraph; and
                          (ii) not make any award which provides for 
                        contributions to a contingency reserve held or 
                        managed by the awardee, as defined in 2 C.F.R. 
                        part 200.433(c).
                  (B) Updating policy manual.--The Foundation shall 
                update its Large Facilities Manual and any other 
                applicable guidance for contingencies on major multi-
                user research facilities with regard to estimating, 
                monitoring, and accounting for contingency.
                  (C) Foundation requirements.--The policy updated 
                under subparagraph (B) shall require that the 
                Foundation--
                          (i) may only include contingency amounts in 
                        an award in accordance with Cost Principles 
                        Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200.433, or 
                        any successor thereto, and the Federal 
                        Acquisition Regulation as appropriate; and
                          (ii) shall retain control over funds budgeted 
                        for contingency, but may disburse budgeted 
                        contingency funds incrementally to the awardee 
                        to ensure project stability and continuity.
                  (D) Awardee requirements.--The policy updated under 
                subparagraph (B) shall require that an awardee shall--
                          (i) provide verifiable documentation to 
                        support any amounts proposed for contingencies; 
                        and
                          (ii) support requests for the release of 
                        contingency funds with evidence of a bona fide 
                        need and that the amounts allocated to the 
                        performance baseline are reasonable and 
                        allowable.
                  (E) Current awardees.--The Foundation shall work with 
                awardees for whom awards with contingency provisions 
                have been made before the date of enactment of this 
                Act--
                          (i) to determine if any of their use of 
                        contingency funds represents out-of-scope 
                        changes for which Foundation's prior written 
                        approval was not obtained; and
                          (ii) if out-of-scope changes are found, to 
                        identify any financial action that may be 
                        appropriate.
          (5) Management fees.--
                  (A) Definition.--In this paragraph, the term 
                ``management fee'' means a portion of an award made by 
                the Foundation for the purpose of covering ordinary and 
                legitimate business expenses necessary to maintain 
                operational stability which are not otherwise allowable 
                under Cost Principles Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 
                200, Subpart E, or any successor regulation thereto.
                  (B) Limitation.--The Foundation may provide a 
                management fee under an award only if the awardee 
                provides justification as to the need for such funds. 
                In such cases, the Foundation shall take into account 
                the awardee's overall financial circumstances when 
                determining the amount of the fee if justified.
                  (C) Financial information.--The Foundation shall 
                require award applicants to provide income and 
                financial information covering a period of no less than 
                3 prior years (or in the case of an entity established 
                less than 3 years prior to the entity's application 
                date, the period beginning on the date of establishment 
                and ending on the application date), including cash on 
                hand and net asset information, in support of a request 
                for management fees. The Foundation shall also require 
                awardees to report to the Foundation annually any 
                sources of non-Federal funds received in excess of 
                $50,000 during the award period.
                  (D) Expense reporting.--The Foundation shall require 
                awardees to track and report to the Foundation annually 
                all expenses reimbursed or otherwise paid for with 
                management fee funds, in accordance with Federal 
                accounting practices as established in Government 
                Accountability Office Report GAO-12-331G, or any 
                successor report thereto.
                  (E) Audits.--The Inspector General of the Foundation 
                may audit any Foundation award for compliance with this 
                paragraph.
                  (F) Prohibited uses.--An awardee may not use 
                management fees for--
                          (i) costs allowable under Cost Principles 
                        Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200, Subpart 
                        E, or any successor regulation thereto;
                          (ii) alcoholic beverages;
                          (iii) tickets to concerts, sporting, or other 
                        entertainment events;
                          (iv) vacation or other travel for nonbusiness 
                        purposes;
                          (v) charitable contributions, except for a 
                        charitable contribution of direct benefit to 
                        the project or activity supported by the 
                        management fee;
                          (vi) social or sporting club memberships;
                          (vii) meals or entertainment for nonbusiness 
                        purposes;
                          (viii) luxury or personal items;
                          (ix) lobbying, as described in the Uniform 
                        Guidance at 2 C.F.R. 200.450; or
                          (x) any other purpose the Foundation 
                        determines is inappropriate.
                  (G) Review.--The Foundation shall review management 
                fee usage for each Foundation award on at least an 
                annual basis for compliance with this paragraph and the 
                Foundation's Large Facilities Manual.
          (6) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
        enactment of this Act, the Director shall submit to Congress a 
        report describing the Foundation's policies for developing and 
        managing major multi-user research facility construction costs, 
        including a description of any aspects of the policies that 
        diverge from the best practices recommended in Government 
        Accountability Office Report GAO-09-3SP, or any successor 
        report thereto, and the Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200.
          (7) Noncompliance.--The Director shall ensure that the 
        Foundation shall take the enforcement actions specified in 45 
        C.F.R. 92.43 for noncompliance with this section.

SEC. 4. WHISTLEBLOWER EDUCATION.

  (a) In General.--The Foundation shall be subject to section 4712 of 
title 41, United States Code.
  (b) Education and Training.--The Foundation shall provide education 
and training for Foundation managers and staff on the requirements of 
such section 4712, and provide information on such section to all 
awardees, contractors, and employees of such awardees and contractors.

                     Committee Statement and Views


                          PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

    H.R. 5049, the NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of 
2016, is sponsored by Representative Barry Loudermilk, Chairman 
of the Oversight Subcommittee of the House Science, Space, and 
Technology Committee. The purpose of the bill is to provide for 
improved management and oversight of major multi-user research 
facilities funded by the National Science Foundation to ensure 
transparency and accountability of construction and management 
costs, and for other purposes.

                  BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

    The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent 
federal agency established in 1950 ``to promote the progress of 
science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and 
welfare; to secure the national defense; and for other 
purposes.'' In support of that mission, the NSF periodically 
funds the development and construction of large-scale, multi-
user scientific facilities through awards made under 
``cooperative agreements.'' Cooperative agreements are a form 
of financial assistance for projects that require substantial 
involvement of the awarding agency, beyond routine monitoring 
or technical assistance. These 5-10 year construction projects 
often range from $300 million to $500 million in total project 
cost. NSF provides funding for the development, construction 
and operation of these facilities through the Major Research 
Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account. MREFC 
projects are both technically demanding and high cost, and have 
presented management challenges for NSF.
    In 2014, the NSF Inspector General initiated audits of one 
MREFC project, the National Ecological Observatory Network 
(NEON) project, due to concerns identified with NSF's previous 
lack of assessment of several high-risk projects prior to 
entering into cooperative agreements and its failure to review 
on a regular basis the awardees submitted costs. The audits 
found that of the proposed $433.72 million NEON project cost, 
approximately $102 million was ``questionable'' and an 
additional $52 million was ``unsupportable.''
    In May 2015, the NSF and National Science Board (NSB) 
commissioned the National Academy of Public Administration 
(NAPA) to conduct a study reviewing the NSF's use of 
cooperative agreements to support the development, construction 
and operation of large-scale research facilities. The NSF and 
NSB commissioned the study in response to concerns raised by 
Congress, the NSF IG and other stakeholders. On December 17, 
2015, NAPA released its final report which found that while 
cooperative agreements are an appropriate mechanism for NSF to 
support large-scale research facilities, several reforms would 
strengthen the oversight of these projects. The report made 13 
recommendations.
    H.R. 5049 addresses gaps in project oversight and 
management through solutions identified by the NSF Inspector 
General, auditors, the NAPA study, and the Science Committee's 
own oversight.

                          LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

    During the 113th and 114th Congresses, the House Committee 
on Science, Space, and Technology held six hearings relevant to 
H.R. 5049.
    On December 3, 2014, the full Committee held a hearing 
entitled, ``Results of Two Audits of the National Ecological 
Observatory Network.'' Witnesses included the Honorable Allison 
Lerner, Inspector General, National Science Foundation, and the 
Honorable Anita Bales, Director, Defense Contract Audit Agency.
    On February 3, 2015, the Subcommittees on Oversight, and 
Research and Technology held a joint hearing entitled, ``NSF's 
Oversight of the NEON Project and Other Major Research 
Facilities Developed Under Cooperative Agreements.'' Witnesses 
included Dr. Richard Buckius, Chief Operating Officer, National 
Science Foundation; Dr. James P. Collins, Chairman of the 
Board, the National Ecological Observatory Network Inc.; and 
Ms. Kate Manuel, Legislative Attorney for the Congressional 
Research Service.
    On February 26, 2015, the Subcommittee on Research and 
Technology held a hearing entitled, ``An Overview of the Fiscal 
Year 2016 Budget Proposal for the National Science Foundation 
and National Institute of Standards and Technology.'' Witnesses 
included the Honorable France Cordova, Director of the National 
Science Foundation; and Dr. Dan Arvizu, Chairman, National 
Science Board.
    On May 20, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 
1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 by a 
vote of 217-205, which included some provisions of H.R. 5049 in 
sections 108 and 109.
    On September 18, 2015, the Subcommittees on Oversight and 
Research and Technology held a joint hearing entitled, ``NEON 
Warning Signs: Examining the Management of the National 
Ecological Observatory Network.'' Witnesses included Dr. James 
L. Olds, Assistant Director for the Directorate for Biological 
Sciences, National Science Foundation; and Dr. James P. 
Collins, Chairman of the Board, National Ecological Observatory 
Network, Inc.
    On February 4, 2016, the Subcommittees on Oversight, and 
Research and Technology held a joint hearing entitled, ``A 
Review of Recommendations for NSF Project Management Reform.'' 
Witnesses included Ms. Cynthia Heckmann, Project Director, 
National Academy of Public Administration; Dr. Richard Buckius, 
Chief Operating Officer, National Science Foundation; and, the 
Honorable Allison Lerner, Inspector General, National Science 
Foundation.
    On March 22, 2016, the Subcommittee on Research and 
Technology held a hearing entitled, ``An Overview of the Budget 
Proposal for the National Science Foundation for Fiscal Year 
2017.'' Witnesses included the Honorable France Cordova, 
Director, National Science Foundation; and Dr. Dan E. Arvizu, 
Chairman, National Science Board.
    On April 26, 2016, H.R. 5049 was introduced by 
Representative Barry Loudermilk with Representative Lamar 
Smith.
    On April 27, 2016, the House Science, Space and Technology 
Committee ordered reported H.R. 5049 by voice vote.

                            COMMITTEE VIEWS

Large Facilities Office

    The Committee considers the NSF Large Facilities Office 
(LFO) to be an important partner for the NSF research 
directorates in the development, assessment, and 
implementation, of major multi-user research facility 
construction and transfer to operations. The Committee agrees 
with recommendations made by the National Academy of Public 
Administration that the NSF should develop project management 
training and education for LFO and program staff and facilitate 
project management knowledge sharing across the agency and with 
award recipients.

Cost proposal analysis

    It is the Committee's view that in addition to internal 
cost proposal reviews carried out by NSF, a review by an 
independent, external entity with proven, relevant expertise 
will provide a higher level of assurance that a proposed major 
multi-user research facility is constructed at the lowest cost 
necessary to taxpayers. The Committee believes that an external 
total project cost analysis will protect taxpayers, the NSF, 
the scientific research community, and NSF's cooperative 
agreement partners against significant project delays and cost 
overruns. The Committee also believes that this step will more 
than pay for itself by identifying budget issues before they 
become problematic.

Incurred cost audits

    The Committee intends for NSF to ensure that incurred cost 
audits are conducted on at least a biennial basis for the 
construction of major multi-user research facilities, beginning 
one-year after commencement of construction. The Committee does 
not intend this requirement to extend to the operations phase 
of major multi-user research facilities, but encourages NSF to 
consider periodic risk-based audits over the course of funding 
the management of large-scale research projects and facilities. 
The Committee understands that some awardees may have incurred 
cost submission and audit systems in place under FAR 42 or 2 
CFR 200, and intends for NSF to leverage existing incurred cost 
audits with the governing audit agency to satisfy the 
requirements of this provision, and minimize post-award 
administrative burdens and costs while ensuring accountability.
    The Committee believes that incurred cost auditing is an 
established, effective tool for controlling costs and revealing 
developing issues during construction of large facilities that 
will protect taxpayers, the NSF, the affected scientific 
research community, and NSF's cooperative agreement partners 
against significant project delays and cost overruns during 
construction of NSF major multi-user research facilities. The 
results of periodic incurred cost audits can provide early 
indications of problems that, if undetected and unresolved, 
could turn into more serious ones that could force a project to 
be scaled back or cancelled due to cost overruns.

Contingency

    The Committee believes that it is important during 
construction of major multi-user research facilities that NSF 
should control the construction contingency budget. However, 
the Committee understands the importance of not needlessly 
delaying the release of contingency funds during construction 
to assure continuity and stability, and encourages NSF to 
develop a system or formula for the approval and release of 
contingency funds in a timely manner, based on proper 
supporting documentation. The Committee strongly believes that 
advancing the entire construction contingency to the 
cooperative agreement partner upon execution of the 
construction agreement should not be NSF policy.

Management fees

    The Committee understands that NSF awardees may incur 
necessary and ordinary business expenses during the 
construction and management of large facilities and projects 
that could not be otherwise reimbursed as either a direct or 
indirect cost and that in some cases a management fee or other 
payment mechanism may be necessary to ensure that these 
business expenses can be covered. However, the Committee 
believes it is inappropriate to treat a management fee as a 
payment to a non-profit awardee for its discretionary use, 
which provides a loophole for federal funds to be abused by 
awardees for inappropriate expenses like alcohol, lobbying, and 
lavish holiday parties. The Committee recognizes that the NSF 
recently instituted new policies for management fees with 
prohibitions on certain expenses and the Committee believes the 
bill largely mirrors that policy.
    The Committee has included an additional prohibition not in 
current NSF policy: charitable contributions, except for a 
charitable contribution of direct benefit to the project or 
activity supported by the management fee. The Committee 
understands that an awardee may face circumstances in which a 
charitable contribution is a necessary and ordinary business 
expense. In most cases, the Committee considers charitable 
contributions supporting STEM education and training activities 
acceptable to meeting the exemption clause for this 
prohibition.
    The Committee believes that the overall financial situation 
of an organization is an important factor in NSF's 
determination if a management fee is necessary and for what 
amount. The Committee also recognizes that some awardee 
financial information may be considered proprietary or 
sensitive and urges NSF, when carrying out the financial 
information requirements of this section, to utilize existing 
financial reporting or other mechanisms to minimize regulatory 
burden and protect sensitive information.
    The Committee strongly urges NSF to consider appropriate 
alternatives to management fees as recommended by NAPA and 
other fee mechanisms used by other federal science agencies.

Whistleblower

    The Committee urges the education and training of NSF 
managers and staff on Section 4712 in the U.S. Code, the Pilot 
Program for Enhancement of Contractor Employee Whistleblower 
Protections. The Committee is extremely appreciative of the 
contributions made by a whistleblower, J. Kirk McGill, an 
auditor with the Defense Contract Audit Agency, who brought 
many of the issues with NSF's management of NEON Inc. to the 
attention of Congress.

                           Section-by-Section


Sec. 1. Short title

    This section establishes the short title of the bill as the 
``NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of 2016.''

Sec. 2. Definitions

    This section defines Director, Foundation and Major Multi-
User Research Facility.

Sec. 3. Management and oversight of Large Facilities

    This section requires the NSF Director to maintain a Large 
Facilities Office serving as the Foundation's resource for all 
policy or process issues related to the development, 
assessment, and implementation of major multi-user research 
facilities.
    Directs the NSF Director to appoint a senior agency 
official to be responsible for the Large Facilities Office.
    Directs the NSF Director to ensure that the Foundation's 
policies for developing and maintaining major multi-user 
research facility costs are consistent with the best practices 
described in the March 2009 Government Accountability Office 
report GAO-09-3SP, or any succeeding report, the Uniform 
Guidance in 2 C.F.R. part 200, and the Federal Acquisition 
Regulation as appropriate.
    Requires NSF to ensure an external total project cost 
proposal analysis is conducted for any major multi-user 
research facility and certify in writing that all issues 
identified during the cost analysis are resolved before the 
Foundation may execute a construction agreement with respect to 
the audited project.
    Requires that an incurred cost audit is conducted at least 
biennially on any major multi-user research facility in 
accordance with Government Auditing Standards as established in 
Government Accountability Office Report GAO-12-331G, or any 
successor report thereto, with the first incurred cost audit to 
commence no later than 12 months after execution of the 
construction agreement.
    Requires the Foundation to: Manage contingencies in 
accordance with Cost Principles Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. 
part 200.433, or any successor thereto, and the Federal 
Acquisition Regulation, as appropriate, except as provided in 
this paragraph; and not make any award that provides for 
contributions to a contingency reserve held or managed by the 
awardee.
    Directs the Foundation to update its manual and any other 
applicable guidance for contingencies on major multi-user 
research facilities with regard to estimating, monitoring, and 
accounting for contingency expenditures that may only include 
amounts in an award in accordance with C.F.R. part 200.433 or 
any succeeding report, and the Federal Acquisition Regulation, 
as appropriate; and that the Foundation shall retain control 
over budgeted-for contingencies, but may disburse budgeted for 
contingency funds incrementally to the awardee to ensure 
project stability and continuity. The policy must also require 
awardees to provide verifiable documentation to support any 
amounts proposed for contingency and support requests for the 
release of contingency funds with evidence of a bona fide need 
and that the amounts sought are reasonable, allocable, and 
allowable, and record and report all expenditures to the 
Foundation.
    Directs the Foundation to work with awardees who have 
received awards with contingency provisions made before the 
date of the enactment of this Act to determine if any of their 
use of contingency funds represent out-of-scope changes for the 
Foundation's prior written approval and if these changes are 
found, to identify any financial action that may be 
appropriate.
    States that the Foundation may provide management fees 
under an award only if the awardee provides a justification as 
to the need for such funds. In such cases, the Foundation shall 
take into account the awardee's overall financial 
circumstances.
    Requires all award applicants to provide income and 
financial information dating back no less than three years to 
the Foundation. All awardees must also report annually to the 
Foundation any sources of non-Federal funds over $50,000. 
Requires the awardees to track and report all expenses 
reimbursed or paid for with management fee funds to the 
Foundation. The Inspector General of the Foundation may audit 
any award for compliance.
    Prohibits an awardee from using management fees for costs 
allowable under Cost Principles Uniform Guidance in 2 C.F.R. 
part 14 200, alcoholic beverages, tickets to concerts, sporting 
or other entertainment events, vacation or other travel for 
non-business purposes, charitable contributions except for a 
charitable contribution of direct benefit to the project or 
activity supported by the management fee, social or sporting 
club memberships, meals or entertainment for non-business 
purposes, luxury or personal items, lobbying, or any other 
purpose the Foundation determines inappropriate. All management 
fee usage will be reviewed by the Foundation for each award on 
at least an annual basis for compliance.
    Directs that within 12 months of enactment, the Foundation 
will submit a report to Congress describing the Foundation's 
policies for developing, assessing, and managing major multi-
user research facility costs, including a description of any 
aspect of those policies that differ from the best practices 
recommended in the GAO Report.
    Requires the NSF Director to ensure that the Foundation 
will take enforcement actions specified in 2 C.F.R. part 200 
for non-compliance.

Section 4. Whistleblower education

    This section states that NSF must provide education and 
training for Foundation managers and staff on Section 4712 in 
the U.S. Code, the Pilot Program for Enhancement of Contractor 
Employee Whistleblower Protections. This information must also 
be transmitted to all NSF awardees, contractors, and employees 
of such awardees and contractors.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    A manager's amendment offered by Representative Barry 
Loudermilk was adopted by the Committee. The amendment made 
minor and technical changes.
    An amendment offered by Representative Eddie Bernie Johnson 
was adopted by the Committee. The amendment changed ``cost 
proposal audit'' to ``external cost proposal analysis'' in 
Section 3.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 27, 2016, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 5049, as amended, by 
voice vote, a quorum being present.

              Application of Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch where the bill relates to the terms and conditions of 
employment or access to public services and accommodations. 
This bill provides for improved management and oversight of 
major multi-user research facilities funded by the National 
Science Foundation. As such this bill does not relate to 
employment or access to public services and accommodations.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
(2)(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives, the Committee's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the descriptive portions of 
this report.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    H.R. 5049, the NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of 
2016, would provide for improved management and oversight of 
major multi-user research facilities funded by the National 
Science Foundation.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 5049 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

                  Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings

    The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 5049 does not 
direct the completion of any specific rule makings within the 
meaning of 5 U.S.C. 551.

                     Federal Advisory Committee Act

    The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish 
or authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within 
the definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b).

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment 
Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded 
Mandate Reform Act, P.L. 104-4) requires a statement as to 
whether the provisions of the reported include unfunded 
mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has 
received a letter from the Congressional Budget Office included 
herein.

                         Earmark Identification

    H.R. 5049 does not include any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of Rule XXI.

                           Committee Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the 
Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out 
H.R. 5049. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides 
that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has 
included in its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the 
bill prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget 
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

     Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following cost estimate for H.R. 5049 from the Director of 
Congressional Budget Office:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 31, 2016.
Hon. Lamar Smith,
Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 5049, the NSF 
Major Research Facility Reform Act of 2016.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Marin 
Burnett.
            Sincerely,
                                                        Keith Hall.
    Enclosure.

H.R. 5049--NSF Major Research Facility Reform Act of 2016

    H.R. 5049 would direct the National Science Foundation 
(NSF) to audit its major multi-user research facilities. Those 
facilities are centers for research in various fields including 
physics, astronomy, geosciences, engineering, and 
nanotechnology. In 2015, $1.1 billion was appropriated to NSF 
for the operation, development, construction, and maintenance 
of more than 20 such facilities.
    The bill also would authorize NSF to pay management fees as 
a part of their research awards under certain conditions and 
would require the agency to provide additional education and 
training for NSF managers and staff regarding employment 
protections for persons reporting a possible misuse of 
government funds.
    Based on information from NSF, CBO estimates that 
conducting the audits required by the legislation would cost 
about $2 million annually and $10 million over the 2017-2021 
period; such spending would be subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds. Other provisions would not have a 
significant cost.
    Enacting H.R. 5049 would not affect direct spending or 
revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply.
    CBO estimates that enacting H.R. 5049 would not increase 
net direct spending or on-budget deficits in any of the four 
consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2027.
    H.R. 5049 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and 
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Marin Burnett. 
The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                                  [all]