1. 2012 NASA PM Challenge
How the Budget Control Act of 2011Affects NASA
Scott J. Cameron
February 23, 2012
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.
Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

2. Context: A very challenging period in US fiscal policy
• In FY 2012 the federal debt is approximately $17
trillion, roughly $50,000 for every man, woman, and child in
America
• Federal deficits are projected as far out as anyone can
project
• Deficit estimate: $1.1 trillion in FY 2012, narrowing to $700
billion in 2014, rising back up to $1.1 trillion in 2021
• In the summer of 2011, the Administration asked Congress
for a debt ceiling increase
• After much debate, Congress agreed to about a $2 trillion
debt ceiling increase, with the requirement for deficit
reductions, as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

3. Key elements of the deficit reduction deal
• Congress raised the debt ceiling
• A bipartisan and bicameral "Supercommittee" was
established and instructed to report back in November
2011 with a $1.2 trillion (over ten years) deficit reduction
plan
• If the Supercommittee plan failed to pass Congress, then
an automatic spending cut, also known as a sequester,
would take effect in January 2013
• Sequester would reduce spending by $1.2 trillion over 10
years
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

4. In the meantime, in NASA's orbit….
• NASA begins to adjust to NASA Authorization Act of 2010,
enacted in October of 2010
• Regular FY 2012 appropriations bill for NASA stalls,
leading to enactment of several continuing resolutions
• Congress finally enacts multi-agency "minibus" FY 12
appropriations act for NASA and other agencies in
November 2011
• NASA experiences FY 2012 budget cuts of about $600
million below the FY 2011 enacted, or $900 million below
the President's FY 2012 request
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

5. In the meantime, in NASA's orbit….
• President’s FY 13 budget request for NASA is $17.7
billion, nearly $1 billion below the FY 12 President's budget
and $59M below the FY 12 enacted
• Modest increases are requested for the James Webb
Space Telescope and manned exploration
• Planetary science is hit hard to protect Webb and SLS
-$309 million overall
-$226 million to Mars mission, a 40% reduction
European Space Agency collaboration at risk
• Projected level funding through 2017
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

6. Failure of the Supercommittee
• The Supercommittee gave up on producing a deficit
reduction package
– Not enough republicans would agree to revenue
increases
– Not enough democrats would agree to deep budget cuts
• President Obama pledged to veto any attempt to get the
government out from underneath the sequester
• Failure lays the ground work for a January 2013 automatic
sequester, one quarter of the way through FY 2013
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

7. What might the FY 13 sequester mean for NASA?
• How much money is at stake for NASA?
• Government-wide 10-year $1.2 trillion total spending
cuts allocated according to a complicated formula
– $216 billion in interest cost savings projected over
10 years
– $109.3 billion in total annual spending cuts
• $54.7 billion in non-defense program cuts in FY
2013
– $38.6 billion in non-defense discretionary
program cuts in 2013
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

8. What might the FY 13 sequester mean for NASA?
• The $38.6 billion in FY 2013 non-defense discretionary cuts
would generally be realized through across the board
proportional spending cuts at all agencies
• $38.6 billion represents a 7.4% across the board budget cut
in non-defense discretionary program funding
• Congress exempted, in whole or in part, some non-defense
discretionary programs from the sequester, so for FY
2013, the non–exempt programs like NASA would
experience budget cuts closer to 9.3%
• NASA's FY 2012 budget is $17.8 billion. If the FY 2013
enacted level is also $17.8 billion, then NASA would face a
$1.6 billion sequester
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

9. What might be the long-term implications for NASA?
• In FY 2014 through FY 2021, the annual non-defense
discretionary spending caps do rise, slowly
• These annual caps are the baseline against which the
outyear spending cuts are applied
• In FY 2014 through FY 2021, the non-defense mandatory
program spending cuts are presumed to grow, so the
discretionary program share goes down, to $33 billion in
FY 2021
• $33 billion implies a 5.5% across the board budget cut in
non-defense discretionary program funding, or closer to
6.9% for non-exempt programs
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

10. Outyear prospects for NASA
• Beginning in FY 2014, it does not necessarily follow
that all agencies will be subject to the same across the
board budget cuts
• Appropriations Committees will need to get under the
funding caps specified in the Budget Control Act of
2011, but they can spread the pain as they see fit
• NASA would be wise to position itself over the next 18
months so as to put itself in the best possible position
with its House and Senate Appropriations
Subcommittees
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

11. Current state of NASA relationship with its
Appropriators, in their own words
• From the FY 2012 Conference Committee report
– "In order to promote strong fiscal oversight, the
Committees on Appropriations have been pursuing with
NASA a number of crosscutting issues, including cost
estimation and control, financial
management, acquisition reform, and grants
management. The conferees direct NASA to stay
engaged in these ongoing efforts and to comply with all
related reporting requirements and directives on these
topics that were contained in the House and Senate
reports."
– "… the conferees expect that NASA will refrain from
proposing additional (budget) account changes unless
directed to do so by the Committees."
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

12. Concerns of the Appropriators
• From the FY 2012 Conference Committee report
– "… keeping JWST on schedule … will require NASA to identify
another $1,052,000,000 over previous JWST estimates…. As a
result, outyear work throughout the agency may need to be
reconsidered."
– "Within the larger MPCV program, components should be procured
via fixed price contracts wherever possible in order to improve cost
control…"
– "NASA is directed to ensure that all work done on the (SLS) early
configurations of the evolvable vehicle is in the service of the
eventual BEO capability….. SLS contracts should be procured via
fixed price contracts in order to improve cost control…"
– "NASA is directed to provide quarterly reports to the Committees on
Appropriations showing anticipated and actual SLS obligations and
outlays…"
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

13. Concerns of the Appropriators
• From the FY 2012 Conference Committee report
– "… the human exploration programs should be
managed under strict cost caps…"
– "Accordingly, the conference committee
recommendation includes $1,000,000, to be
provided by transfer to the OIG, to commission a
comprehensive independent assessment of
NASA's strategic direction and agency
management."
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

14. Concerns of the Appropriators
• From the FY 2012 House Appropriations Committee report
– "… including funding above the request for the recently-authorized
space exploration crew vehicle and launch system."
– "… NASA needs to develop and pursue new and different ways of
operating that will promote efficiency and economy; annual budget
increases can no longer be counted on as the means for achieving
mission goals."
– "The adoption of a joint cost and schedule confidence level (JCL)
approach and a requirement for budgets to be formulated at a 70
percent JCL are positive steps for improving cost estimates, but the
integrity of these policies is undermined by NASA's willingness to
make exceptions and allow projects to move forward at lower
confidence levels."
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

15. Concerns of the Appropriators
• From the FY 2012 House Appropriations Committee report
– "Without improvements in project management, NASA will be
unable to hold to even its most rigorous cost estimates."
– "NASA's reports generally contain only a cursory explanation
for why cost and/or schedule parameters have been
breached and are not responsive to the requirements to
address the impact of these overruns on other NASA
programs or to consider a broad range of alternatives to the
program."
– "NASA needs to revise its reports to be less focused on
defending the program in breach and more focused on
providing information on causes, impacts, and options that
the Committee needs in order to make informed decisions …"
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

16. Concerns of the Appropriators
• From the FY 2012 House Appropriations Committee report
– "… chronic and deeply rooted management problems in
the JWST project. These issues led to the project cost
being underestimated by as much as $1,400,000…"
– " significant cost-overruns are commonplace at NASA….
The committee provides no funding for JWST in fiscal
year 2012."
– " … the focus on initially flying a smaller vehicle cannot
distract NASA from fulfilling its legal obligation to design
the SLS from inception as a 130 metric ton vehicle…"
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

17. Concerns of the Appropriators
• From the FY 2012 House Appropriations Committee report
– "Exploration destinations. …Specific, aggressive goals
are necessary both to focus the program and to provide
a common vision around which public and political
support can be rallied."
– "NASA's acquisition capabilities have not kept pace with
its workload."
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

18. Concerns of the Appropriators
• From the FY 2012 Senate Appropriations Committee report
– "Reductions to NASA at this critical time in the agency's
transition from the space shuttle program to new
vehicles for human spaceflight will challenge the agency
to make every dollar count."
– "The United States cannot reinvent its space program
every 4 years."
– "NASA's acquisition management remains on the
Government Accountability Office's "high risk" list….it is
imperative that NASA do a better job of managing these
large projects."
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

19. Concerns of the Appropriators
• From the FY 2012 Senate Appropriations Committee report
– "… the IG found that 'NASA does not have an
adequate system of controls to ensure proper
administration and management of its grant
program.' "
– "The Committee is disappointed with NASA's
lack of commitment to significant enterprise-
wide data center consolidation."
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

20. Bottom Line
• The Budget Control Act of 2011 will force budget reductions at NASA
and elsewhere across the government through 2021
• NASA's budget reductions will be significant
• NASA does not have a good management reputation with Congress
• NASA's mission is popular with the Congress and the public
• NASA's mission popularity cannot be relied upon to protect the agency
from even deeper budget cuts if the quality of its management
continues to frustrate the Appropriations Committees
• Scare funding resources will flow to agencies that can demonstrate
they are good stewards of public funding and produce results for the
American people; NASA needs to be able to position itself accordingly
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

21. For more information
Scott J. Cameron
703 348-7279
Wendy Morton-Huddleston, NASA Account Lead
703 637-2853
wendy.morton-huddleston@us.gt.com
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.

22. Questions
© Grant Thornton. All rights reserved.