NNSA Infrastructure Initiatives BUILDER and MDI Jeff Underwood Office of Infrastructure and Capital Planning March 25, 2014

NA-OO Strategic Objectives Arrest the declining state of NNSA infrastructure Build an operating model that is repeatable, predictable, transparent, effective and efficient. Drive NNSA towards a positive performance culture with safe operations Implement cutting-edge sustainable infrastructure management practices Manage risk and employ innovative solutions

BLUF Ability to “see” conditions via uniform lens across all NNSA sites Ability to understand and to project risk at various funding levels Data required at enterprise level, sites can use BUILDER for original assessments or can pass data into BUILDER from existing systems. Enterprise level “real time” data to monitor program execution. A National Academy of Science recommended way to communicate the condition of real property to key stakeholders, adopted by the DoD and being adopted by other agencies, including DNI, FBI, and the Smithsonian. More efficient use of limited site resources.

BLUF Ability to “see” conditions via uniform lens across all NNSA sites Ability to understand and to project risk at various funding levels Data required at enterprise level, sites can use BUILDER for original assessments or can pass data into BUILDER from existing systems. Enterprise level “real time” data to monitor program execution. A National Academy of Science recommended way to communicate the condition of real property to key stakeholders, adopted by the DoD and being adopted by other agencies, including DNI, FBI, and the Smithsonian. More efficient use of limited site resources.

Process Inventory Real Property Inventory Component Inventory Assessment Condition Assessment Functionality Assessment Prediction CI Prediction Work Planning Work Generation Work Prioritization Forecasting Course of Action (COA) Analysis

Inventory Import from FIMS and site systems. Supports tactical actions (e.g. replace roof, repair doors, replace HVAC, etc.) Group assets for lifecycle investment management, reduces assessment requirements Immediately supports asset performance predictions Section Component System Building Facility (B20) Exterior Closure (B2010) Walls Masonry Metal Panel Curtain Wall (B2020) Doors (D30) Services (D3020) Heating Boiler(s) Example Building Hierarchy

Condition Assessment Capture the lifecycle rating of an asset to inform risk-based decisions Performance Requirements may change, but measurement should be constant Inspectors are “human sensor” and do not provide opinion/interpretation Models the rating given by an expert based upon engineering principles for consistency across an organization Assessment frequency and level-of-detail are tailored to mission risk and lifecycle condition (Knowledge Based Inspections) Import legacy deficiencies from existing software for IOC, round out with assessment of other systems after IOC. Navy has recognized 75% savings over their previous assessment program.

Condition Prediction Construction/Installation 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 2015 Year 60 20 80 40 100 Asset Condition Index Inspection 1 Inspection 2 “Economic Sweet Spot” Inspection 3 Condition @ Failure “Real” Service Life = 17 years Design Life = 20 yrs. Adaptive model predicts performance of each unique asset; identifies best time to invest

Functionality Assessment Modernization inspection addresses issues of: Capacity (too little or too much) Configuration Change in user requirements Technical obsolescence Regulatory/code compliance Etc. Available at building, space, and component levels Can simulate mission change to determine investment requirements for future occupants Functionality Index is a general obsolescence metric that is independent of condition. This index provides an objective approach to determining modernization requirements of a facility or functional space. General categories can be found in the screen shot below.

Work (Requirements) Generation Work is automatically created based upon Enterprise-defined rules that capture acceptable levels of risk for differing assets System evaluates work options to optimize Return on Investment Work is generated using objective ratings AND a defensible set of enterprise policies, eliminating subjective judgment and gaming of the system. Enterprise-defined rules generate consistent requirements Service- wide

Work Generation 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2020 2015 Year 60 20 80 40 100 CI CI Gain HVAC (70) Repair Interior Construction (55) Repair SL Gain [Note: This slide contains animations, which match the narrative described in the notes. If viewing as handouts, the graphic will appear to be jumbled.] Having established both the metric and performance models, the final piece of the puzzle was the work requirements. Since Condition Index provides a perfect, objective metric, it is ideal for using standards, or condition thresholds to trigger investments, based upon mission requirements. In this example of a secondary road, notice that a repair causes the condition to go up (although not all the way to 100, since there are things the repair probably didn’t/couldn’t address). After the repair, there is a new performance trend which shows the additional service life gained by this repair. The new curve is NOT just a translation to the right; there is component aging the repairs didn’t/couldn’t address, and so it is expected that the new curve will be shorter (and therefore steeper) than the original curve. Work requirements are automatically generated when condition falls below enterprise policy levels.

Requirements Prioritization Balance multiple, competing criteria for determination of the best enterprise infrastructure investment strategy Tool includes metrics which express [cost] effectiveness, risk, and consequence factors Program override available for must-do items Uniform prioritization of requirements across organization enforces consistent investment guidance.

Actionable Work Plan Work is for specific assets; establishes 2010 Because the work plan is built upon the actual components that will be maintained, traceability and accountability for the distribution of funds is now established. That’s not to say that HQ will engage in directing expenditures at the actual work item level. It would still be correct to expect funds to be disbursed as annual lump sums out through the regions and on to the installations as occurs now. However, compared to the current methodology, where installations’ budgets are based purely on gross portfolio conditions and models get their annual work budget and told “spend this wisely”; the facility managers will actually know what they should be executing because the budget was built from the bottom up using these constituent work items. It is still expected, and is beyond the scope of these applications that work packaging, contracting, and work performance will occur in other systems suited to work execution. The SMS’ are being integrated with Maximo® for the Navy and Marines, and will be connected with the Army General Funds Enterprise Business System (GFEBS) in the near future. But this is part of the holistic approach to building a system-of-systems design that builds capabilities and processes from best-of-breed applications that provide value to the day-to-day user of these systems, such that the data quality in each system is higher due to the users’ reliance on it. 2010 2010 Work is for specific assets; establishes transparency, traceability and accountability

Condition Index (CI) BUILDER-derived value is more consistent and repeatable than deficiency-based methods Work is now generated using objective ratings AND an defensible set of enterprise policies, rather than subjective judgment Prioritization scheme can leverage metrics to focus resources on greatest need. Having walked through the work generation process, you should have seen the consistent, rules-based approach the develops investment requirements. This approach builds upon the cost-effective, objective assessment metrics to inexpensively produce investment guidance in a manner that ensures consistent levels of performance across the entire organization. To put in the words of the Navy Project Manager for BUILDER®, “Funding will no longer be fair and equal. It will be fair, but it will not be equal.” CI computation is based upon objective assessment methods and consistent work rules.

Actionable intelligence built from the asset up Forecasting What-If capability allows changing inventory, policies, prioritization, funding, and forecast period to determine different outcomes. Supports: Budget Creation Budget Defense Course Of Action Analysis Out-year strategic condition trends Will levels meet current mission requirements? Will levels meet future mission requirements? Actionable intelligence built from the asset up

Impact on Systems of Funding 50% of Requirement Forecasting Results Impact on Systems of Funding 50% of Requirement HVAC Functioning High Risk Electrical Failure Roofing

Benefits Over Today Reduced assessment costs Avoidance of missed opportunity costs Avoidance of stale information costs Adaptability to additional assessment protocols Sustained product improvements through R&D No product licensing costs (Federally owned)

Take Aways BUILDER provides consistent, objective, efficient decision support and reporting on facility conditions and investment requirements from the site to the enterprise level NNSA is following DoD’s and adopting BUILDER as standardized condition assessment process and tool for all components USACE is supporting implementation efforts for many DoD agencies.

Mission Dependency Index (MDI) at a Glance New Metric Mission Dependency Index (MDI) at a Glance

Basic Parameters and Calculations “A” Matrix Q1 Q2 “B” Matrix Q3 Q4 “N” Interdependencies MDI = (16.5(A + (1/8) Bavg + 0.1lnN)-15.5 Answers to Q1 and Q3 select a column within the A and B matrices (typically 4x4). Answers to Q2 an Q4 select rows; a11 and b11 have highest consequence and greatest difficulty to replace. A = Matrix element chosen by Q1 and Q2 in A Matrix. Bavg = Average of matrix elements chosen by Q3 and Q4 in the B Matrix for each of N different interdependent assets. 16.5 and 15.5 normalize to 100 max and 1 min values for the 4x4 matrix with a11 and b11 equal to 7 and each element differing from its neighbors by 1. 1/8 and 0.1 lnN are empirical and can be adjusted to fit the user’s intuitive importance of interdependencies.

Key Concepts MDI is based on the functionality (useful purposes) provided by the asset, not the asset itself. This focuses on why the asset is useful and not on the asset itself. Restoration of the functionality provided by an asset is not necessarily the same as restoration of the asset. Loss of functionality has a consequence for mission, assessed separately from the consequences of an accident or other unplanned event that might cause a loss of functionality. Answering Question Q1 captures the severity of the consequence of a loss of the asset’s functionality. Restoration of functionality requires overcoming a level of difficulty. Answering Question Q2 captures the difficulty of restoring the functionality of an asset. Some asset functionalities affect the functionality of other assets. Answering Q3 & Q4 capture the consequences and difficulties, similar to Q1 and Q2, for the asset. MDI is calculated from the consequence of loss of functionality and the difficulty of restoration of functionality, adjusted for asset interdependency.

Take Aways Answers the question, “ How much risk am I accepting on the facilities most essential to my mission and commitments?” Measures risk across a spectrum from 0 to 100 (instead of the macro current MC/MD/NMCMD bins in use today.) Writing Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 in terms of senior management priorities allows tailoring to different missions and goals, allowing functionalities supporting safety and environment to compete with direct mission functionalities. MDI x Condition Index gives a prioritization metric for maintenance. MDI is a key parameter in the work planning portion of the Builder Sustainment Management System. Implementation effort can be simplified by preparing standard screenings for general purpose facilities, allowing sites to accept the standard screenings or to modify to fit local circumstances.