Army Implementation of Performance-Based Contracting 29 Jun 05 Mr. Jim Daniel Chief, Cleanup Division, USAEC

Why Use PBC? Performance-Based Contracting is intended to improve cost and schedule performance without compromising cleanups that are protective of human health and the environment Lower risk of cost growth Accelerates cleanup / property transfer Can be aligned to exit strategies or used to optimize systems Cost effective / lower remediation costs Army Implementation of PBC

PBC for Environmental Cleanup Goal is for Contractor to achieve one or more of the following performance objectives for each site identified in the PWS: Remedy in Place with successful 5-year review Response complete Long-term monitoring with successful 5-year review Operating and performing successfully (OPS) Implementation of ramp down and/or exit strategy Army Implementation of PBC

Metrics Installation Restoration Program PBC goals: FY03: 3-5% of total program – achieved 9% ($37M) FY04: 30% of total program – achieved 36% ($141M) FY05: 50% of total program  GOAL ~$200M FY06: 60% of total program FY07+: 70% of total program Army Implementation of PBC

Results of the PBC Initiative Since 2000, Army has awarded more than 30 PBCs $300 million in contract capacity Range in value from $700,000 to $52.4 million In FY04, 36% of Army’s restoration program was put on performance-based contracts (~$140 million) Contracts in 24 states and all 10 EPA Regions FY05 Summary: $130M applied to PBC through May 05 9 new PBC awards through May others at some stage of procurement Army Implementation of PBC

Army PBC Awards to Date* Hawaii BRAC Active * Installation locations are approximate Army Implementation of PBC

The Army PBC Process Preliminary Screening / On- Site Evaluation Conduct additional activities to prepare for PBC in future Draft and/or refine PWS/RFQ and IGE Seek input on PWS/RFQ and IGE Release RFQ Conduct technical evaluation Proceed with current path forward Is installation good PBC candidate? Can additional activities help candidacy ? Is there agreement on the PWS/RFQ and IGE? Is there a technically acceptable proposal? Award PBC N N N N Y Y Y Y Post-Award / Contract Implementation Army Implementation of PBC Bidders Site Visit Regulator Involvement

The Future of the Army Initiative Continue current path for active and BRAC sites Nearly 30 evaluations or procurement actions on-going Evaluate viability for use in other areas Military Munitions Response Program SI pilot Regional Long-term Management Contracts Slow to develop (demand has to mature) Continue to learn from awarded contracts Army Implementation of PBC

Observations and Challenges from the Past Four Years Project planning needs to be a team effort Clearly defined endpoints and objectives are required Including regulators throughout the process significantly increases acceptance Knowledgeable Contracting Officer and Contracting Officer Representative are required Timely input of evaluations of contractor performance into database is essential Army Implementation of PBC

Observations and Challenges from the Past Four Years Competition is key to a fair price Contractor transition is critical There is a short-term impact to the installation program during the transition to a PBC Army Implementation of PBC

Continuing Challenges Balancing contractor risk, cost for the work, and desire to achieve site closeout against the uncertainties Ensuring sufficient contractor pool Determining appropriate performance objectives Army Implementation of PBC

Resources Performance-Based Contracting web page Army Implementation of PBC

BACKUP SLIDES Army Implementation of PBC

PBC Accomplishments Installations SitesCTC ($M)IGE ($M) Contract Award ($M) CTC - Contract ($M) IGE - Contract ($M) FY01-02Fort Gordon, Fort Leavenworth FY03 Fort Dix, Fort Jackson, Lake City AAP, Ravenna AAP, Sierra Army AD FY04 Aberdeen PG - Graces Quarters, Aberdeen PG - Other Aberdeen Areas, Fort Detrick, Fort Irwin, Fort Rucker, Holston AAP, Hunter AAF, Iowa AAP, Louisiana AAP, Milan AAP, Reserves, Riverbank AAP, Rock Island, Fort Leonard Wood FY05Hawaii Installations, Camp Navajo Cumulative Cost Avoidance on all PBCs (based on CTC) 29.9% Cost Avoidance on all PBCs (based on IGE) 16.5% Army Implementation of PBC

FY05 Planned Procurements Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (3 procurements) Alaska installations (Fort Richardson / Haines Terminal) (2 procurements) Camp Bullis / Fort Sam Houston, TX Camp Crowder, MO / Fort Chaffee, AR Dugway Proving Ground, UT Fort Drum, NY Camp Navajo, AZ (Awarded) Fort Gillem, GA Fort Knox, KY Fort Meade, MD Fort Pickett, VA Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, IL Hawaii installations (Tripler / Schofield Barracks) (Awarded) Longhorn AAP, TX Los Alamitos / Camp Roberts, CA Picatinny Arsenal, NJ Ravenna AAP, OH Redstone Arsenal, AL Soldier System Center, MA Army Implementation of PBC