Transcript Army MMRP Site Inspections Performance

Army MMRP
Site Inspections
Performance-Based Contract
Lessons Learned
Gaby A. Atik, P.E.
[email protected]
FPM group
August 2007
PBC Background
 MMRP Overview
 FPM’s Active Army MMRP SIs PBC
 Lessons Learned

Outline
FPM
group

President’s 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) 2.1.0 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
PBC Background
FPM
group
UNCERTAINTY
SITE GROUPING
FLEXIBILITY
KNOWN END-STATE
PBC Screening
FPM
group
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
MMRP Overview
FPM
group

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
MMRP Overview
FPM
group

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 MMRP SIs PBC – Overview
FPM
group
FPM MMRP SIs PBC - Location
FPM
group
NGB
USAEC
Installations
USACE
Regulators
FPM/URS
Team
Others
FPM MMRP SIs PBC - Stakeholders
FPM
group

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)
SI PBC Objectives
FPM
group
TECHNICAL PROJECT PLANNING (TPP) 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
QUARTERLY QUALITY IN PROGRESS REVIEWS (QIPRs)
QIPR
QIPR
QIPR
QIPR
QIPR
SI PBC PROCESS
QIPR
QIPR
QIPR
FPM
group
Acceptable Performance
Unacceptable Performance
Superior Performance
SI PBC Performance Standards
FPM
group

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
NGB
USAEC
Installations
USACE
Regulators
FPM/URS
Others
Lessons Learned – Coordination
FPM
group

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
 Communicate with the stakeholders to ensure
attendance
Lessons Learned – Coordination
FPM
group

Challenge: Deliverables Consistency
◦ Key Deliverables: HRR, WP, SI Report
 Iterations: Army Draft, Stakeholder Draft & Final
 19 Installations
57 Key deliverables / year

Lessons:
◦ Leverage USAEC’s 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
Lessons Learned – Deliverables
FPM
group

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
◦ USAEC’s consistent management of Active
MMRP facilitates regulatory acceptance
Lessons Learned – Uncertainty
FPM
group
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
Lessons Learned – Risk
FPM
group
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
Lessons Learned – Cash Flow
FPM
group
TO PBC OR NOT TO PBC?
FPM
group