Army MMRP Site Inspections Performance-Based Contract Lessons Learned Gaby A. Atik, P.E. FPM group August 2007

FPM group Outline PBC Background MMRP Overview FPMs Active Army MMRP SIs PBC Lessons Learned

FPM group PBC Background Presidents Management Agenda (2001/2002) Government likes to begin things – to declare grand new programs and causes and national objectives. But good beginnings are not the measure of success. What matters in the end is completion. Performance. Results. President George W. Bush Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) defines PBC …structuring all aspects of an acquisition around the purpose of the work to be performed with the contract requirements set forth in clear, specific, and objective terms with measurable outcomes as opposed to either the manner by which the work is to be performed or broad and imprecise statements of work. Similar discussions in FAR 36 and 37 PBC = Paying for results Based on clear definition of scope Approach affords flexibility to Contractor in developing solutions Minimizes likelihood of cost growth – CTC fidelity Typically considered for post-RI phases Transfers risk from government to contractor PBC Business as Usual

FPM group PBC Screening UNCERTAINTY KNOWN END-STATE SITE GROUPING FLEXIBILITY

FPM group MMRP Overview MMRP Established by FY02 Defense Authorization Act as a DERP Program MMRP Policy Follows CERCLA Process Applies to releases prior to 30 Sep 2002 Does not apply to: Operational Areas Operating Storage/Manufacturing Facilities Permitted Treatment or Disposal Facilities Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP) (32 CFR Part 179) - Promulgated in October 2005

FPM group MMRP Overview Active Army MMRP Centrally Managed by USAEC Executed by USACE Military Munitions Design Centers Baltimore Omaha Sacramento Supported by Huntsville USACE Military Munitions Center of Expertise Over 800 MRSs at approximately 165 Installations representing ± 3 Million Acres MMRP PAs completed in 2003 ahead of 2007 goal MMRP SIs on-track for completion prior to 2010 goal

FPM group FPM MMRP SIs PBC – Overview Competitively Awarded FFP PBC 2-Step Process 1.Qualify 2.Low-bid PBC Awarded to Complete MMRP SIs in Central & Western Regions Teaming Partner – URS 19 Installations ± 100 MRSs Average Cost per Installation $150K 8 Installations awarded in FY06 11 Installations awarded in FY07 Performance Period = 2 years

FPM group FPM MMRP SIs PBC - Location

FPM group FPM MMRP SIs PBC - Stakeholders Installations Regulators NGB USAEC USACE FPM/URS Team Others

FPM group SI PBC Objectives Key Objectives/Milestones Historical Records Review < 12 months SI Report < 24 months Other Milestones Project Management Plan Technical Project Planning (TPP) Meetings Quarterly Quality in Progress Reviews (QIPRs)

FPM group SI PBC PROCESS TPP1 MEETING Installation Visit Archives Search Army Draft Historical Records Review (HRR) Stakeholder Draft HRR TPP2 MEETING Final HRR Army Draft SI Work Plan (WP) Stakeholder Draft SI WP SI Field Work Internal Army SI Stakeholder Draft SI TPP3 MEETING Final SI AEDB-R Upload ERIS Upload GIS Upload TECHNICAL PROJECT PLANNING (TPP) PROCESS QIPR QUARTERLY QUALITY IN PROGRESS REVIEWS (QIPRs)

FPM group SI PBC Performance Standards Unacceptable PerformanceSuperior Performance Acceptable Performance

FPM group Lessons Learned – Coordination Challenge: Scheduling Meetings 19 Installations X 3 TPP meetings + 4 QIPRs/year Average 2 meetings /month Minimum 5-6 stakeholders / meeting 6 Other Active Army Contractors with similar requirements also trying to schedule with USAEC and USACE PMs Communication protocol varies Installations Regulators NGB USAEC USACE FPM/URSOthers

FPM group Lessons Learned – Coordination Lessons Leverage USAEC, USACE & NGB resources to identify Installation POCs Contact Installation POC and establish stakeholder communication protocol early-on Initiate meeting scheduling efforts as early as possible NLT 30 days but preferably 45 days prior to meeting Stakeholders participation at TPP meetings ensures project success Communicate with the stakeholders to ensure attendance

FPM group Lessons Learned – Deliverables Challenge: Deliverables Consistency Key Deliverables: HRR, WP, SI Report Iterations: Army Draft, Stakeholder Draft & Final 19 Installations 57 Key deliverables / year Lessons: Leverage USAECs central management of Active Army MMRP to streamline deliverables Ensure that pilot deliverable is approved prior submitting simultaneous deliverables Optimize # of personnel involved to ensure consistency and timeliness

FPM group Lessons Learned – Uncertainty Challenge: Uncertainty in SI Scope CTT/Phase 3 Site Inventory (PA) findings current validity Operational areas variation Regulatory acceptance Lessons: HRR is Errors & Omissions Policy for CTT Operational area variations require flexibility by all parties to ensure that SI MRSs are valid USAECs consistent management of Active MMRP facilitates regulatory acceptance

FPM group Lessons Learned – Risk Challenge: How to manage SIs PBC risk? Lessons: Regional contract provides inherent diversification Further risk diversification is achieved through teaming Continuously evaluate need for improvements Staggering of awards provides opportunities for implementing lessons learned Keep in mind that while you get paid for getting to the Finish line, you get rated for how you get there

FPM group Lessons Learned – Cash Flow Challenge: Key deliverables/milestones are not achieved till 1 and 2 years following award Lessons: Include as many measurable Interim Milestones as reasonably possible Finish early Diversify contracts portfolio Best-value PBC Low-bid PBC Traditional Contracts

FPM group TO PBC OR NOT TO PBC?