That's not how facilities work or are accounted for.
Facilities are common to all of the university. It doesn't make sense to force this individual requirement on each grant when the University has hundreds of ways it is using a given building or lab equipment.
Are you thinking "facility" == "building" and "rooms"?
The lab equipment is constantly evolving, needs repair, maintenance, on-site training. Perhaps you are thinking of a lab bench that is going to last the lifetime of the building and I am thinking of a computer server, 3D scanner, 3D printer, MRI machine (small lab system), etc.
My son has taken second year organic chemistry classes that had more computer hardware and software than I ever had in my electrical engineering/computer
science classes in the early 1990s. The software might be open source, or might have ongoing software license fees. While those specific teaching labs should be paid for through tuition, imagine similar or more advanced versions in the research labs.
facility is intentionally broad. I think the point being that all of those things are being provided by the University to many researchers/students/professors.
The point is that separating out what gets allocated where, when there are so many things that might have multiple uses, is a pointless task if you're trying to reverse engineer how much money should be given to individual research teams to account for it. The University already has the systems in place to manage the overhead. There's no reason to do more work to try and get to the same result.
This is what accountants do. They match expenses to income. It shouldn't be that hard.
J. Random Professor is using lab #12 for his group. Apportion the overall building expenses by square foot to his grant budgets, or something along those lines.
