IPR

VW International, Inc

Background & Scope Approach to Study Conceptual Definitions – Past Lessons Results… Questions

Mod performed to the HFPO Guide (wiki) update process with the idea to incorporate the results/processes into the Guide.

The scope is to evaluate, determine, and recommend the optimal way for HFPA Construction Management Division (CMD) to support the initial outfitting/facility provisioning and transition of operations for all projects within HFPA’s construction program.

Specific requirement was to provide recommendations regarding:

• Programming of funds and resources • Staffing / Organization of CMD, Project Offices, and local MTF’s

transition committees• Development of IO&T budget requirements, management of

funds, and execution tracking• Transition , IO planning, consulting support & execution

management• IO procurement and management• Development of policies, procedures, checklists and other items

to document the plan• Other functions and actions required to provision and transition

operations into the new facility.

Ft Detrick (2)FY07-13 $735.0M

Ft Hood (2)$16.5M

Germany (1)$13.0M

LegendMedical MILCON In Construction

Korea (2)$62.0M

Medical MILCON Program FY 07-13

Total Projects: 10Total PA: $372.1M

Total Projects: 26Total PA: $1,596.3M / $46.7 MCA

Ft Irwin (1)FY07 $6.0M

Ft Hood (1)FY07 $18.0M Ft Sam Houston (1)

FY09 $11.0M

Camp Bullis (1)FY08 $7.4M

Ft Benning (1)$7.1M

Ft Drum (1)FY07 $9.7M

Aberdeen (2)FY09-13 $381.0.0M

Italy (1)FY07 $52.0M ($29.5M MCA)

Ft Richardson (1)FY07 $37.2M ($17.2M MCA)

Ft Wainwright (1)$215.0M

Ft Leonard Wood (1)FY09 $20.0M

Ft Carson (1)FY13 $3.1MPike’s Peak (1)FY12 $4.2M

Tripler (1)FY13 $35.0M

Ft Stewart (1)FY13 $4.0M

Ft Benning (2)FY12-13 $153.0M

Ft Lewis (1)FY13 $8.0M

Ft Riley (1)FY13 $20.0M

Ft Bragg (1)$4.3M

NOTE: From TMA FY08-13 POM Submission

Camp Zama (1)FY13 $6.7M

Korea (1)FY13 $11.8M

White Sands (1)FY13 $8.0M

Germany (3)FY12-13 $65.2M

Ft Detrick (2)FY06 $54.2M

0707

0808

1010

1212

FY

0909

1111

1313

Study and recommend best approach for HFPA to support the Initial Outfitting and Transition of the incoming Construction workload

Analyze available historical data for resourcing patterns

Create model to determine tasks Extrapolate scale given input parameters: $,

location, FY, type, quantities Research task suitability for contracting Consolidation by location, type of activity, design-

build options Estimate alternatives Identify risks due to capacity issues

Determine the distribution of total requirements as defined by the anticipated construction program

Determine funding model using construction program as input parameter (pie-sizer)

Create a Task Allocation model (pie- slicer) Propose a model of task consolidation

based upon timing and location

Utilizing data from BAMC and Basset AHC

Analyze and catalogue expenditures into task groupings.

Determine allocation of funds expended by Task Category

Arrive at a model as to how to slice the IO&T resource pie into Task Slices, which could then be addressed as requirements

Analyze prospective from three aspects: time (FY), location, and scale.

Determine size of each project’s pie.

Group the pies (by location & time).

Slice each pie into tasks.

Group the task “slices” into new “requirements pies”.

A look back to Brooke Army Medical Center (as detailed data source)

Conceptual definitions

Transition Funds

Investment• Supports all costs required to move the “steady state” of the

facility from the current level to the newly proposed level of the project. Currently MEDCOM and HFPA IO& transition budgets pay some of these costs.

Transition• Supports all costs that are temporal in nature, and that do

not result in a change of the “steady state.” Currently MEDCOM and HFPA transition budgets pay for more than this category.

Operations• Supports annually recurring costs required to sustain the

new “steady state.” Currently MEDCOM and HFPA transition budgets pay some of these costs.

Prior Steady State

Transition Funds cover the temporary costs of change.

New Enhanced

Steady StateSustainment

Investment Growth

MEDCASE

OM (CEEP, etc.)

OM (IM desktop & system)

ManPower

MILCON

Facility Investment (MILCON) drives

stream of funding from various sources,

while creating a new and continuous

level of sustained requirements.

Certification & Commissioning

Dual Operations Phasing Planning Post-BOD Initiatives Preparation Project Management Promotion Provisioning

Military Construction / Renewal

Moving Operations/Sustainment Training Reclamation

Certification & Commissioning• Testing building systems, safety inspections-assessments.

Construction/Renewal• The actual project appropriation, i.e MILCON, BRAC, or Renewal.

Dual Operations• Operating two physical plants during occupation phase from BOD through

FOD. Phasing

• Operating costs incurred due to phasing through the project period (temp buildings, moving of functions temporarily, etc.)

Planning• Actions not directly related to project management but which are

generated by the project existence (i.e. backfill plans for old facility). Post-BOD Initiatives

• Initiatives not part of the original scope but identified to make the facility meet user operational desires/needs (may be ECPs).

Preparation• Making the facility ready for occupation but excluding provisioning

tasks. ie. pest control, initial pre-cleaning, IBS floor sealing. Project Management

• Management tasks required to support construction and all other tasks required to move in and operate it (excludes RE and tasks that would be considered normal medical operational management ie. strategic planning)

Promotion• Any promotional actions: dedication ceremony, tours,

advertising/marketing materials. Does not include staff training support materials.

Provisioning• The bulk of the project support costs. Procurement costs to equip,

and install those new items. If part of a central contract, some project management costs may be here.

Moving• The task of physically moving from the old to the new,

may become blurred with phasing costs in a total renovation project.

Operations/Sustainment• Tasks and costs associated with operating the plant,

may be higher or lower than current dependent upon adaptation of business practice to new facility.

Training• Staff training actions, i.e. orientations, systems hands-

on training, TDY Reclamation

• Getting out of the old facility prior to release to post. e.g. disposal of old equipment, cleaning, potentially environmental clean-up.

Investment97.60%

Transition2.08%

Operation0.32%

BAMC Costs - last year of project, partial data.

Minimal Operational cost information.

Transition Cost managed by HFPA

Investment costs - mixed management, includes MILCON

Approximately $297M in addition to MILCON

Operational6.69%

Transition5.71%

Investment87.60%

Programs consist of: Investment, Transition & Operational costs.

Total: $454,907,502

MEDCASE 18%

Operational 7%

Transition 3%

HFPO 1%

TOC 2%

MILCON 46%

BRAC 9%Investment 5%

IM, Investment 10%

Programs consist of: Investment, Transition & Operational costs.

Applied to some projects : 121 Hospital Korea, PA: $7.1M

• Transition $0.738M• Investment $4.217M• Operational $0.866M

Beach Education Center, PA:$24M• Transition $ 2.496M• Investment $14.256M• Operational $ 2.928M

Ft Wainwright Hospital, PA:$117M• Transition $12.198M• Investment $69.498M• Operational $14.274M

4.4% PM 6.0% Transition

9.2% Investment

32.5% MEDCASE

12.2% Operational

17.7% IM Investment

Project Management5.37%

IM Provisioning19.05%

Certification & Promotion 0.24%

Post-BOD Initiatives 1.32%

Provisioning46.19%

Training 1.62%

Operations 13.39%

Cat E 8.04%

Dual Operations 0.60%

Preparation 1.57%Decomissioning 0.37%

Phasing 0.89%

Moving 1.36%

Excludes construction costs, except Cat E ($18M), percents of task costs not total project cost.

1997 look

NOTE: Location sites ( ) from TMA FY08-13 POM Submission

Western Region Eastern Region

Status Quo Turn-Key MX HFPA Teams

Requirements ID 1 2 1 3

Procurement Timeliness

1 3 1 3

Procurement Correct

2 3 3 3

Receipt/Storage 2 3 2 2

Installation 1 2 1 1

Totals 7 15 8 12

1 – Creates a Challenging Management Efficiency2 – Is an Acceptable Management Efficiency3 – Creates an Improved Management Efficiency