1. By Don Young, PE, CCM VP/Regional Operations Manager Lessons Learned from BRAC and other federal programs June 11, 2012

2. Reminder on rules for this L&L webinar Please remember that all Lunch-n-Learn materials are confidential and are not to be copied or distributed outside of MBP. Be aware from where you dial into this webinar –Keep the volume down… if necessary wear headphones –Don’t let your screen be visible by non MBP TMs –Keep hard copy of slides covered when not using Be sure to mute all phones (especially cell phones) in order to eliminate distracting background noise. 2

3. Agenda Introduction Overview of major federal programs Sample BRAC program Defining Lessons Learned and process Lessons Learned: Sustain & Needs Improvement – Pursuit/Contract Ramp-up – Documentation – Technical Inspection – Client Relationships – Project Controls – Value Added Summary Q&A 3

4. Famous Guy Quote Learning Organizations are: …organizations where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually learning to see the whole together. 4 Peter M. Senge (1947-…)

5. Presentation Objective To share lessons learned observations from the simultaneous implementation of several major federal programs that MBP worked on for the Department of Defense (DOD) clients from 2008- 2012. Increase awareness for future application of these federal sector lessons learned to other MBP sectors (Municipal, K-12, Higher Ed, Industrial, and Transportation). 5

6. Major Federal Programs ARRA – American Recovery and Reinvestment Act COS – Center of Standardization BRAC – Base Realignment and Closure MILCON – Military Construction GTF – Grow the Force GDPR/IGPBS – Integrated Global Presence of Base Strategy/Global Defense Posture Realignment 6

7. USACE Centers of Standardization: (8) Locations/(41) Product-Lines  Huntsville Center (15)  Physical Fitness  Outdoor Sports Facility  Child Development (2)  Youth Activity Centers  Consolidated Fire, Safety and Security Facility  Fire Station  Army Community Service Center  Bowling Center RFP  Hazard Material Storage  Range and Training Lands  Close Combat Tactical Trainer  Mil. Ops. Urban Terrain Facility  Training Ranges  Battle CMD Training Ctr.  Training Support Ctr.  Medical Facilities  Louisville District/LRD (2)  Army Reserve Centers  Operational Readiness Training Complex  Judicial Centers  Museums  Norfolk District/NAD (7)  General Instructional Facility  Classroom 21  Enlisted personnel Dining Facility  Mil. Entrance Processing Stations  Family Housing RFP  Information Systems Facility  Criminal Investigation Facility 7  Omaha District/NWD (2)  Religious Facilities  Access Control Points  Mobile District/SAD (2)  Aviation –Vertical Construction  4 Star HQ Facility (Design District)  Savannah District/SAD (6)  Company Operations Facility  Tactical Equipment Maintenance  Brigade Operations Complex  Brigade/ Battalion HQ: Admin  Cmd./Control : UEy (2-star) and Corps (UEx – 3-star) HQ: Admin/Operations  Deployment Facility  Honolulu District/POD (2)  Unaccompanied Officers Quarters  Transient Officers Quarters  Ft. Worth District/SWD (5)  Unaccompanied Enlisted Personnel Housing  Basic Combat Training Complex/One Station Unit Trainee  Advanced Individual Training Complex  General Purpose Warehouse  Central Issue Warehouse  Warriors in Transition (WIT) Complex

8. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) was signed into law by President Obama on February 17th, 2009. The intent was to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges so our country can thrive in the 21st century. By the end of September 2010, USACE had obligated $4.437 billion of the $4.6 billion (96 percent) of its Civil Works ARRA appropriation; $2.568 billion of the $2.852 billion (90 percent) received for Military Programs, with 100 percent of authorized projects awarded; and $531 million of $535 million (99.3 percent) toward the International and Interagency Services Program. 8

9. What is BRAC 1.It is the congressionally authorized process. 2.DoD’s method to reorganize base structure to more efficiently support our forces, increase operational readiness and facilitate new ways of doing business. 3.The most recent BRAC round of 2005 wrapped up in September 2011. It affected more than 800 installations and 123,000 personnel and cost about $35 billion. 4.The Defense Department estimates it will spend $414 million on environmental cleanup projects from that round of base closures. 9

10. 2005 BRAC Round 10

11. Total BRAC Actions 11 Although the most recent BRAC 2013 initiative was voted down there could be a BRAC round in 2015, which would follow the recommendation of the 2005. In Europe, 97 sites closed and returned 23,000 acres to host countries since BRAC 2005. Another 23 locations, most in Germany, will shut down in the next four years. In South Korea, the Army has closed or will close more than 50 installations.

12. 2005 BRAC Actions 12

13. Example BRAC Situation: Fort Lee impact to the US Army Overall Fort Lee BRAC Program – $1.3 Billion new construction = 56 Projects – 6.5 Million square feet of New Facilities  Growth from 7.5 million to 14 million square feet – Daily on post population increase from 32,000 to 47,000 Training ground for 38% of the US Army Train >70,000 students annually (all 5 branches) A major economic driver for central Virginia 13

14. Overview of MBP support to BRAC (+) 14 DoD AgencyMBP Billed Fees 20082009201020112012 USACEBaltimore # of TMs575334811 $ Amount$4,046,138.70$4,947,718.30$4,813,891.75$2,045,444.49$120,259.18 USACESavannah # of TMs11316128 $ Amount $ 93,495.13 $ 150,131.71 $ 795,485.19 $ 1,428,242.20 $ 207,868.67 USACENorfolk # of TMs06142221 $ Amount$0.00$986,048.87$1,927,793.18$1,271,527.22$438,070.78 NAVFAC Midlant# of TMs142219128 $ Amount $ 297,236.06 $ 3,327,475.46 $ 2,975,684.33 $ 1,845,901.55 $ 429,125.05 NAVFAC Washington# of TMs102931234 $ Amount$672,811.16$1,859,770.54$3,024,672.74$1,895,556.31$31,562.20 Total Team Members921131147752 Total Fees$5,109,681.05$11,271,144.88$13,537,527.19$8,486,671.77$1,226,885.88 through April 30, 2012 $39,631,910.77 Types of MBP Services performed: PM, CM, QA Inspections (ET), CE, CPM/Project Controls, Claims, Safety PM, Utility Coordination, Roof-Building Envelope Inspections

15. MBP Projects 15 Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, Fort Belvoir, VA Fort Myer, Lincoln Hall, National Defense University, Washington, DC NAVFAC Washington, National Naval Medical Center, Washington, DC US Merchant Marine Academy, NAVFAC Mid-Atlantic, Kings Point, NY Fort Lee Army Logistics University, VA Fort Eustis Barracks, VA

16. Lessons Learned Here are two definitions for the term "lessons learned": 1. From the U.S. Army's Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL): Knowledge gained through experience, which if shared, would benefit the work of others. 2. From the Scope of Work in a recent MBP contract: Lessons learned shall be defined as knowledge gained from experience, successful or otherwise, for the purpose of improving future performance. Examples include: a lesson that is incorporated into a work process; a tip to enhance future performance; a solution to a problem or a corrective action; a lesson that is incorporated into a policy or a guideline; or an adverse situation to avoid. 16

17. Typical Lesson Learned Models: 17 Source: Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) 11-33 - Establishing a Lessons Learned Program - Handbook

18. Two types of Lessons Learned for this presentation 1.Sustain: Observations* that were successful in implementation and should be considered for future utilization. 2.Needs Improvements: Observations* that were not efficient, or well executed. Adjustments are needed before future utilization (Note: solutions are not included in this presentation). * Observations: “what did we set out to do” and ”what actually happened.” 18

19. BRAC LL#1: Pursuit/Contract Ramp-up SUSTAIN Teaming Strategy should address additional capacity and capability Senior MBP leader involvement and regional cross-checking for teaming Fast mobilization on large Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) Construction Management Construction Inspection (CMCI) contracts Establishing modified recruiting agreements with recruiting agencies Contract utilization between federal agencies and existing small business contracts for MBP to be a sub Internal MBP contract organization structure facilitated efficient client care, quality, and timesheet/billing Assisting with developing task order SOW and position descriptions Rapid resume conversion process for task order approvals by federal agency contracting officer representative (COR) 19

20. BRAC LL#1: Pursuit/Contract Ramp-up NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Integration of new TMs into MBP after Day-1 Orientation when they become embedded at the client’s site: “Sense of belonging” Awareness that federal agencies will actively recruit our on-site consultants/QA inspectors “Pay-When-Paid” concept is foreign to recruiting agencies for paying their monthly invoices Awareness that some USACE Districts (NAD vs SAD) do not like to use other district contracts (or GSA PES); same for NAVFAC Midlant Awareness that USACE and NAVFAC will initially use existing A/E contracts for CMCI support Common Access Card (CAC) card badging and security background information take time and will impact start dates and/or capability of a new consultant 20

21. BRAC LL#2: Documentation SUSTAIN Accuracy of MBP QA daily reports Flexibility of MBP TMs in using electronic PM systems – USACE Resident Management System (RMS) – Various additional e-PM systems used by contractors – Imperative to establish protocols early in project on which system is used for specific functions Tracking of RFI’s, change orders, and submittals Use of USACE EM 385-1-1 safety manual for construction 21

22. BRAC LL#2: Documentation NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Red team process implementation on daily/weekly reports entered into federal agency reporting system Recommend MBP QA check for ample amount of geotechnical site investigation to reduce risk for USACE/NAVFAC Independent Cx agent reports should flow to the federal agency in addition to the Design-Build (D-B) team Awareness of the USACE venture into a modified Healthcare CM@Risk delivery method (refer to other MBP Lesson Learned Reports on medical center construction during BRAC) 22

23. BRAC LL#3: Technical Inspection SUSTAIN Technical knowledge and QC skills resulted in expansion of duties for MBP QA Inspectors….which extended contract task orders Cooperation of QA Inspectors and CMs to work with other consultants working in the same area or program Enforcing the use of contractor “mock-ups” on-site to allow USACE review and comment Daily communication with local federal agency area/resident engineers and officer in charge MBP QA check for quality site access and layout is incorporated into the GC plan (USACE) 23

24. BRAC LL#3: Technical Inspection NEEDS IMPROVEMENT For MBP project controls and QA, check for early delivery of Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment (FF&E) in order to not impact punchlist inspections and fixes, damaging furniture, and late work completion For MBP QA, check for poorly prepared site layout and access roads to prevent work delays (NAVFAC) Awareness that federal agencies conduct lots of meetings… which impacts consultant time management of daily duties 24

25. BRAC LL#4: Client Relationships SUSTAIN Constant focus on Safety and Small Business utilization Proactively facilitate the decision making process that is very complex Project executive and program manager site visits/correspondence with federal agencies COR/area engineer Addressing errors and mistakes the first time correctly Solving problems on-site; agencies appreciated good technical advice Listen, be responsive, exhibit consistent professionalism, conduct ethical decision making, and keep commitments Project team integration especially with stakeholders (tenants) Mentoring agency young engineers and interns 25

26. BRAC LL#4: Client Relationships NEEDS IMPROVEMENT CM support on Design-Build teams conflicts with USACE support (CPM review and CxA) Awareness that USACE used BRAC as an opportunity to train their young engineers and new hires too – USACE (Savannah/Mobile) used DA-intern program for project staffing – NAVFAC Midlant used it as a recruiting tool to backfill GS vacancies Awareness that the federal agency procurement process and Contracting Officer (CO) interactions are bureaucratic and slow Business development with remote USACE Centers of Standardization for projects in the Mid-Atlantic area 26

27. BRAC LL#5: Project Controls SUSTAIN Real time work management by schedule management – Scheduling used as a proactive project management tool – Backward looks assist agencies with contractor claims & C/O MBP as trusted advisor: established a true partnership with USACE on Quality/Schedule/Budget “Firewall” created to prevent conflicts of interest on USACE project controls work versus Design-Build team CPM Schedule support Expansion of MBP FAI project controls contract with USACE Norfolk District included several hospital lessons learned studies, claim work, Project Definition Review (PDR) and QA inspectors Fort Benning (USACE Savannah) Master Schedule used for project construction placement, USACE staffing, and budget. 27

28. BRAC LL#5: Project Controls NEEDS IMPROVEMENT MBP needed more schedulers in Base Year of BRAC. The best schedulers are those TMs with on-site field (project) experience Awareness that inaccurate parametric cost estimates on DD Form 1391 programming led to cost overruns on NAVFAC Design-Build projects – Some USACE D-B program costs impacted scope Awareness that scope creep through design impacted cost and tenant expectations Need to know all client decision makers, especially the GS employees in the field that impact COR situational awareness Take into account contractor capabilities when establishing MBP level effort for SOW and fee determination Ability to handle a client who will not take MBP advise 28

29. BRAC LL#6: Value Added SUSTAIN Created a “P3 scheduling hub” for CPM services to D-B teams Vision and planning to see BRAC coming in order to strategically prepare 1-2 years out MBP provided the following additional services: – Utility coordinator – Safety program manager – Claims support – Roof/Building envelope inspection – Training and USACE database – Lessons learned studies – Organizational development: PMO 29

30. BRAC LL#6: Value Added NEEDS IMPROVEMENT Impact to MBP services with introduction of BIM into federal projects at various phases Understanding the process with USACE Centers of Standardization Sharing internal MBP lessons learned in a more timely manner Increase the number of certified roof consultants in MBP for earlier involvement in support of USACE Cx Services to Design Build Teams versus Owner direct support Awareness that agencies need more contracting support-type services (contract mods) 30

31. BRAC LL: Summary Good client relationships build trust and opportunities to expand resources in support of their program For federal clients, speed of response is as important as accuracy Coordination within and between the project team, federal agency, and all stakeholders is essential for project success Large programs require advanced BD intelligence for forming teaming strategy, contract planning, and marketing preparations Contract ramp-up on large programs requires planning & hard work BIM technology…we need it! Independent Cx agent needs to work directly for the federal agency (versus the D-B team or General Contractor) Share and apply lessons learned on a regular basis 31

32. Questions & Answers 32