14. FY22-26_AFCAMP_Business_Rules_v2_marked up_12Jun2020.pdf

1 | P a g e

FY22-26 AFCAMP BUSINESS RULES

(v.2.0 as of 12 Jun 2020 // changes since original issue highlighted in green)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Click Chapter for hyperlink)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(Click Chapter for hyperlink)

1. FY22-26 AFCAMP Overview

1.1. Summary of Major Changes from FY21-25

1.2. FY22-26 Timeline

1.3. Points of Contact

2. FY22-26 AFCAMP Methodology

2.0 Purpose of the AFCAMP:

2.1. Project Scoring

2.2. AFCAMP Funding Programs & Eligibility

2.3 FSRM Programming and Prioritization (CTO and PTO projects)

2.4. MFH Programming and Prioritization

2.5. EI WP Programming and Prioritization

3. FY22-26 AFCAMP Facilities Guidance

3.1. Constraints and Section Specific Guidance

3.2. Supplemental guidance

4. FY22-26 AFCAMP Transportation Networks and Airfield Pavements (TNAP) Guidance

4.1. Probability of Failure (POF)

4.2. Pavements Specific Guidance

4.3. Other TNAP Supporting Systems Specific Guidance

4.4. Railroads Specific Guidance

4.5. Bridge Specific Guidance

4.6. Ports Specific Guidance

4.7. Installation Access Control Points (IACP)

5. FY22-26 AFCAMP Utilities Guidance

5.1. Required Coordination

5.2. Utility Condition Data

5.3. Determining Utility Condition Index (UCI)

5.4. Determining Utility Dependency Index (UDI)

5.5. POL and Real Property Fuel Storage Tank Assets

2 | P a g e

5.6. Electrical and Airfield Lighting Distribution

5.7. Generators

5.8. Thermal Systems (Natural Gas, Steam, Hot Water, and Chilled Water Systems)

5.9. Wastewater and Storm-water Systems

5.10. Water Systems

5.11. PoF Calculation from UCI

5.12. COAU SharePoint site

5.13. Utilities AMP Workspace:

6. FY22-26 AFCAMP Natural Infrastructure Guidance

6.1. Process

6.2. Constraints/Section Specific Guidance

6.3. Examples

7. FY22-26 Non-Condition Based (NCB) Scoring Requirements including Minor Construction

(MC) 38

7.1. Overall Guidance

7.2. Required Data Entry for ACES / NexGen IT: (moved to para.13.3.1)

7.3. Non-Condition Based (NCB) Requirements Basic Guidance

7.4. Scoring Overview

7.5. Specific Enterprise Execution Direction (SEED)

7.6. Enterprise Objective Categories (EOs)

7.7. General Scoring Category (GSC) #1: Code Compliance

7.8. General Scoring Category #2: AF Strategic Alignment

7.9. General Scoring Category #3: Other Proposals

7.10. Probability of Failure (PoF) and Condition Index (CI) Score

7.11. Consequence of Failure (CoF) and Tactical - Mission Dependency Index (T-MDI) or Utility Dependency Index (UDI) Values

8. FY22-26 AFCAMP Cost Savings Guidance

8.1. Overview

8.2. Process

8.3. Constraints/Section Specific Guidance

8.4. Supplemental Guidance

9. FY22-26 AFCAMP Energy Savings Project Guidance

9.1. Process

9.2. Constraints/Section Specific Guidance

9.3. Supplemental Guidance

10. FY22-26 AFCAMP MDI Guidance

10.1. Overview

3 | P a g e

11. FY22-26 AFCAMP UDI Adjustment Request and Approval Process

11.1. Overview

11.2. Process

11.3. Constraints/Section Specific Guidance

11.4. Example

12. FY22-26 AFCAMP Troop Training Projects Guidance

12.1. Overview

12.2. Process

12.3. Constraints/Section Specific Guidance

13. FY22-26 AFCAMP Requirements Development and Validation Documentation Submittal Requirements

13.1. Requirements Development

13.2. Required Documentation

13.3. Preparation Guidance:

14. FY22-26 AFCAMP Validation Submittal Guidance

14.1. Overview

14.2. Process

15. FY22-26 AFCAMP Standalone Demolition Guidance

15.1. Process

15.2. Constraints/Section Specific Guidance

15.3. Supplemental guidance

16. FY22-26 AFCAMP Military Family Housing Guidance

16.1. Overview

16.2. Process

16.3. Step 3: Provide Validation Data

17. FY21* Emergent Requirement Requests Guidance (ERRs)

17.1. Overview

17.2. Process

17.3. Constraints/Section Specific Guidance

17.4. Request and Approval Thresholds

17.5. Supplemental Guidance

17.6. Examples

18. FY22-26 AFCAMP Mission and Energy Assurance (M&EA) Guidance

18.1. Overview

18.2. M&EA Sub-AMP Process

18.3. Minor Construction

19. FY22-26 AFCAMP Planning and Design Guidance

4 | P a g e

19.1. Design Funds and Advance Planning

19.2 Planning Task Order (PTO) Supporting Conceptual Charrette Reports (C2R) for Requirements Development:

19.3. Comprehensive Planning Platform (CPP) Vector Check:

19.4. Concept Charrette Report (C2R) Funding:

19.5. Design Funds

20. Temporary Facilities Guidance

20.1. Temporary Facilities:

20.2. Temporary Facilities Approvals - Submittal

20.3. Funding

20.4. Timing

21. Air Force Engineering Installation Work Plan (AF EI WP) Guidance

21.1. AF EI WP

21.2. Submittal

21.3. Approval

TABLES

Table 1-1. FY22-26 AFCAMP Milestones

Table 1-2. General Contact List

Table 2-1. Probability of Failure Score*

Table 2-2. Consequence of Failure

Table 2-3. Cost Savings

Table 4-1. Dskid Values

Table 4-2. DSI Values

Table 4-3. Adjusted MDI by Pavement Rank (Airfield Pavement Only)

Table 4-4. Definitions of PCI Ratings

Table 4-5. Definitions of Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk CI Ratings

Table 4-6. Definitions of TNAP Supporting System Asset CI Ratings

Table 4-7. Definitions of Rail CIs

Table 7-1. PoF Score for Non Condition Based Projects

Table 7-2. Determining Condition Based vs Non-Condition Based Work

Table 9-1. Economic Life for BLCC

Table 12-1. TTP Requirements / Prioritization

Table 13-1. Required Documentation Matrix (Projects Seeking FY22 Funding)

Table 13-2 ACES / NexGen IT Scoring Required Input Matrix

5 | P a g e

Table 13-3 Multi Activity Worksheet (MAW) Required Input Matrix

Table 16-1. MFH Primary Classification/Prioritization

FIGURES

Figure 1-1. FY22-26 AFCAMP Timeline

Figure 1-2. Contact List: Facilities AMP

Figure 1-3. Contact List: TNAP AMP

Figure 1-4. Contact List: Utilities AMP

Figure 2-1. Risk Matrix

Figure 2-2. AFI 32-1020 Para.2.12.1. AFCAMP Floor

Figure 2-3. AFI 32-1020 Para.2.12.4. AFCAMP Floor Exemptions

Figure 2-4. FY22-26 MAJCOM Prioritization

Figure 2-5 MAJCOM Priority Allocation

Figure 14-1. AFCAMP SharePoint Home Page

Figure 14-2. IPL Validation Home Page

Figure 14-3. IPL Validation Projects Home Page

Figure 14-4. Project Page

Figure 14-5. Uploading Documents

Figure 14-6. Viewing Uploaded Documents

Figure 21-1. AF EI WP Governance Structure

6 | P a g e

1. FY22-26 AFCAMP Overview

1.1. Summary of Major Changes from FY21-25.

This section is an overview of significant changes made to the AFCAMP Business Rules to support the FY22-26 IPL build.

1.1.1. Timelines: Timelines in Para.1.2 have been revised from last year and now include timelines for T- MDI/MDI/UDI adjudication and the Comprehensive Planning Platform (CPP) Vector Check process. A data management period was added to the month of September to focus efforts on data quality prior to focusing on project reviews during the validation period. In order to flatten the workload curve and minimize last minute submittals, a three month “open season” was created from July through September. (para.1.2)

1.1.2. Contacts: Consolidated all contact information in para.1.3 to make easier to read. Allows print-out of a single contact list. (para.1.3)

1.1.3. Terminology – “Integrated Task Order” (ITO): The term ITO will be established to describe the document that integrates all task orders. These include the Planning Task Order (PTO), Construction Task Order (CTO), Military Family Housing Task Order (MFHTO), Environmental Task Order (ETO), Engineering Installation Work Plan (EI WP). (para.2.0)

1.1.4. Charrette Terminology: Changed the term Planning Charrette Report (PCR) to “Conceptual Charrette Report” (C2R) to reflect the true purpose of the document, which is to provide conceptual engineering and design.

Further explanation is provided in Chapters 13 and 19. AFCEC/CPRD will update the C2R template to reflect this. The change will also facilitate programming and asset management reviews during development of the document through use of the CPP Vector Check process. (para.13.2.5., 13.3.5.)

1.1.5. Documentation Requirements Chapter: Moved all document requirements from individual chapters to Chapter 13, the chapter which formerly discussed Simplified Analysis of Alternatives (SAoA)s. Chapter 13 now serves as an easier to read consolidated chapter for document requirements. Troop Training moves from Chapter 13 to Chapter 12 to improve flow of the document. The existing DD1391 & SAoA matrix was expanded to include threshold requirements for the use of the CPP Vector Check process, submittal of C2R s and parametric estimates. (Chapter 13, Table 13-1)

1.1.6. Comprehensive Planning Platform (CPP): Now that use of the CPP Vector Check process is now mandatory in FY22 for some projects, content was added describing the process in Chapter 19. Thresholds requiring use of the CPP Vector Check is provided in table 13-1. This applies to those projects seeking design or execution funding starting in FY22. Chapter 13 contains updated details to charrette documentation requirements and Chapter 19 details the processes for requesting charrette funding via the Planning Task Order. (Table 13-1, Chapter 19)

1.1.7. Added Non Condition Based Scoring Category for Code Compliance: Added General Scoring Category #1 to score Non-Condition-Based (NCB) work which adds new or upgrades existing systems or components to meet a code or standard or meet functionally based requirements. In these cases, neither condition based scoring, nor Enterprise Objective Scoring Categories 1-7 would be appropriate. Types of work includes compliance with an AFI, UFC, DoDI, International Building Code, Federal/State/Local Laws, Seismic Code, Flood Control (EO11988, etc), Life-Health-Safety deficiencies such as Risk Assessment Codes (RAC)s and Fire Safety Deficiencies (FSD)s, and Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection (ATFP) Code. This eliminates the SMS Builder Direct Condition Rating Assessment Matrix Spreadsheet and eliminates the need to create phantom systems in SMS Builder. (para.7.7.)

1.1.8. ERR Authorities: Revised ERR approval authorities in Chapter 17. AFCEC/CL is now the approval authority for ALL ERR requests. Removed old table; now reflects the AFCAMP Floor in AFI 32-1020, para.

2.12, which took effect in FY20. (para.17.4.)

1.1.9. Additional Support Chapters: Added Chapters 20 & 21 to provide information and support for the Temporary Facilities approval process and development of the Engineering Installation Work Plan (EI WP) for communications infrastructure. (Chapter 20 & 21)

7 | P a g e

1.1.10. Consolidation-Demolition Funding: Facility Demo-Consolidation projects may optionally compete in a new separate business case funding set-aside. Scoring and competing under Non-Condition Based (NCB) Enterprise Objective Category #3 scoring may still be used. Work will be scored/prioritized on a cost/SF and Area Cost Factor (ACF) basis. (para.3.1.8.)

1.1.11. AFCAMP Floor Exemption for New Mission (pending): (as defined in AFI 10-503 Strategic Basing) exemption from AFCAMP floor in AFI 32-1020, para.2.12. This has been proposed and is still pending. This exemption may not be used until an AF Policy Guidance Memo (PGM) has been issued to amend the AFI.

(para.2.2.3.2.)

1.2. FY22-26 Timeline

Figure 1-1. FY22-26 AFCAMP Timeline

Table 1-1. FY22-26 AFCAMP Milestones Mid Apr AFCEC Release FY22-26 Business Rules 15 Apr Installations Begin - Open season for submittal of T-MDI/MDI/UDI adjudication 4 May – 18 Jun AFCEC/CPDI FY22 AFCAMP Webinars 26 Jun Installations Deadline: End open season for submittal T-MDI/MDI/UDI

Adjudication Installations Deadline: Complete SMS Builder Assessments & Inventory Data 6 Jul Installations Begin Open Season – Submit AFCAMP documents AFCEC/CPDI Distribute PSW Template to installations Jul – Sep Installations Facilities Boards 4 Sep Installations Deadline: submit for Scoping Vector Check on Comprehensive

Planning Platform (CPP) Installations Deadline: Load ACES/ NexGen IT data, for all FY22-26 projects, to include project scoring data Installations w/

AFIMSC

T-MDI/MDI/UDI adjustment complete (for FY22 AFCAMP)

8 Sep - 16 Oct AFCEC/CPDI w/ Installations:

Data Management Validation Period

8 Sep - 18 Sep AFCEC/CPDI w/ Installations:

Validate project list & program type (“Building the Buckets”)

21 Sep – 2 Oct AFCEC/CPDI w/ Installations:

Validate scoring & data flags & document requirements

9 Oct Installations Deadline: End Open Season – submit AFCAMP scoring/validation documents (projects > $5M) – HARD DATE!

Incomplete submissions will NOT be eligible for FY22 funding and shifted to FY23

13 Nov Installations w/

AFCEC/CPRD

Deadline: – Complete CPP vector checks (FY22 funded projects)

8 | P a g e

13 Nov Installations Deadline: End Open Season – submit AFCAMP documents (projects

< $5M) – HARD DATE!

Installations Deadline: Facilities Board priorities due in ACES / NexGen IT Incomplete submissions will NOT be eligible for FY22 funding and shifted to FY23 o/a 20 Nov AFCEC/CPDI Final IPL Pull AFCEC/ALL Scoring/adjustments after this date must be requested by a

MAJCOM or validator 18 Dec AFCEC/ALL Deadline: - Complete validation reviews & provide feedback Send project/validation feedback to installations/MAJCOMs/Dets 8 Jan AFCEC/ALL Deadline: - Resolve validation comments with installations/MAJCOMs/Dets Final day for MAJCOM/Det project scoring changes All projects not resolved by 8 Jan will be deferred to FY23 or removed from IPL 15 Jan AFCEC/CPDI Send draft IPL/validated project lists to MAJCOMS for input/prioritization Mid-Jan AFCEC/CP AFCEC Board #1: FY22-26 AFCAMP Update, Funding Outlook &

MAJCOM Prioritization 26 Feb MAJCOMs Deadline: - MAJCOM/CC priorities due to AFCEC Early Mar AFCEC/CP AFCEC Board #2: Present Draft FY22-26 AFCAMP, Housing, UMMC and EI WP IPLs to MAJCOMs Mid-Late Mar AFCEC/CP AFCEC Board #3: Provide IPL updates and address issues to finalize the FY22-26 AFCAMP, MFH, UMMC, and EI WP IPLs.

Early Apr AFCEC/CP AFCEC Board #4: Achieve AFCEC Board concurrence for FY21-25

AFCAMP FSRM/EQ, MFH, UMMC, EI WP IPLs in advance of AFCEC Council.

Early-Mid Apr AFCEC/CL AFCEC Council: Obtain CTO Approval, sign tri-partite memo Mid-April AFIMSC/CC Approve FY22-26 IPL / FY23-27 Business Rules Mid-Late April AFCEC/CL Issue CTO/PTO/ETO/MFHTO/EI-WP-TO

9 | P a g e

1.3. Points of Contact

1.3.1 General Contacts by Focus Chapter

Focus (Chapter) Org Symbol Name DSN Email Role/Notes

1-19, 21 AFCEC/CPDI TORTELLA, ERICA E Lt Col 969-1762 erica.tortella@us.af.mil

AFCAMP Integration Section Chief (Governance)

1-19 AFCEC/CPDI HEDSTROM, WILLIAM H GS-14 969-1758 william.hedstrom@us.af.mil

AFCAMP Integrator (Governance, MAJCOM Coord, Validation)

1-19 AFCEC/CPDI BUSE, JOHN E GS-13 969-8876 john.buse.1@us.af.mil

AFCAMP Analyst (Business Rules, Validation Integration)

1-19 AFCEC/CPDI RHODES, STEPHEN S Capt 969-8845 stephen.rhodes.5@us.af.mil

AFCAMP Analyst (Current Year

CTO)

1-19 AFCEC/CPDI VALLEJO, JOSE L Capt 969-8056 jose.vallejo.5@us.af.mil

AFCAMP Analyst (IPL Generator, Validation Site, Troop Training)

1-19 AFCEC/CPDI AFCEC/CPD Workflow AFCEC.CPD.Workflow@us.af.m il

3 AFIMSC/IZBF

DINH, QUOCVIET ‘FRANCIS’

GS-14 969-8874 quocviet.dinh.2@us.af.mil AMP-Facilities

4 AFIMSC/IZBF BIERMAN, SARA E GS-14

210-550- 3494 sara.bierman@us.af.mil AMP-TNAP

5, 11 AFIMSC/IZBF BATES, IVONNE M GS-14 969-8881 ivonne.bates.1@us.af.mil AMP-Utilities

6 AFCEC/CZCP PEREZ, VIVIAN V GS-14 969-8397 vivian.perez@us.af.mil Sub-AMP Natural Infrastructure

6 AFCEC/CZCP

NEWCOMER, WILLIAM S GS-

13 969-8387 william.newcomer.1@us.af.mil Sub-AMP Natural Infrastructure

6 AFCEC/CZCP ODOM, TERRY L GS-13 969-8388 terry.odom.1@us.af.mil Sub-AMP Natural Infrastructure

6 AFIMSC/IZBF TBD AMP Natural Infrastructure

7 AFCEC/CPPD MCELHANNON, NEAL B GS-13 969-8055 neal.mcelhannon.1@us.af.mil Non-Cond Scoring - Space

7 AFIMSC/IZS MCDANIEL, RANDAL L GS-13 969-1521 randal.mcdaniel@us.af.mil Non-Cond Scoring

7 AFIMSC/IZP DAVIS, MARK E GS-13 969-8144 mark.davis.43@us.af.mil Non-Cond Scoring - ATFP

8, 9, 18 AFCEC/CND DENT, MARK R CTR 523-6394 mark.dent.ctr@us.af.mil Sub-AMP Energy/Savings

8, 9, 18 AFCEC/CND VOLK, DEVEN R GS-13 523-6843 deven.volk.1@us.af.mil Sub-AMP Energy/Savings

10 AFIMSC/IZBO HUNTER, HEIDI M SMSgt 969-8832 heidi.hunter@us.af.mil T-MDI

10 AFIMSC/IZBO

AFIMSC/IZB Installation Engineering Workflow

AFIMSC.IZB.Workflow@us.af.

mil T-MDI

13, 17, 20 AFCEC/CPDO

GEORGE, BARBARA ‘JANIE’

GS-14 969-0127 barbara.george.1@us.af.mil Programming, ERR, Temp Fac

16 AFCEC/IZB VILLEGAS, RODELIO C CIV 969-8244 rodelio.villegas@us.af.mil AMP-Housing

16, 3 AFCEC/CIMH SCULLION, MICHAEL J GS-13 969-8298 michael.scullion.2@us.af.mil

Sub-AMP Permanent Party Dormitories

AFCEC/CIM

H POIRIER, TIMOTHY J GS-13 969-8294 Timothy.poirier@us.af.mil Sub-AMP Family Housing (MFH)

17 AFCEC/CPDO GESSNER, GERARD R JR GS-13 969-1755 gerard.gessner@us.af.mil ERR

17 AFIMSC/IZBF FUSON, JOHN C Maj 969-8133 john.fuson.1@us.af.mil

AFIMSC Funding - ExPlan, CUR Requests

18 AFCEC/CNR GRAY, WILLIAM ‘Ken’ GS-14 523-6168 william.gray.21@us.af.mil Sub-AMP Energy/Resilliency

8, 9, 18 AFIMSC/IZBO PUGH, TIMOTHY C GS-14 969-8080 timothy.pugh@us.af.mil AMP - Energy

19, 13 AFCEC/CPRD DIAZ, DANIEL JR Maj 969-1751 daniel.diaz@us.af.mil PTO, CPP Vector Checks

19 AFCEC/CPPD CPP Platform - Workflow AFCEC.CPP.Platform@us.af.

mil

19 AFCEC/CPPD BAIE, RYAN W GS-13 ryan.baie@us.af.mil CPP – Planning Actions

19 AFCEC/CFSE LEDOUX, JEFFREY E Maj 969-8523 jeffrey.ledoux.1@us.af.mil Weaponeering

19 AFCEC/CFSC TEPPERMAN, JUDITH H GS-14 969-0971 judith.tepperman@us.af.mil Weaponeering

20 AFCEC/CP ZETTERSTEN, GARRY C CTR 969-1087 garry.zettersten.ctr@us.af.mil Temporary Facilities

21 AFCEC/CPDI GORHAM, DAVID L GS-13 969-8188 david.gorham.4@us.af.mil Communications EI Work Plan mailto:erica.tortella@us.af.mil mailto:william.hedstrom@us.af.mil mailto:john.buse.1@us.af.mil mailto:stephen.rhodes.5@us.af.mil mailto:jose.vallejo.5@us.af.mil mailto:AFCEC.CPD.Workflow@us.af.mil mailto:AFCEC.CPD.Workflow@us.af.mil mailto:quocviet.dinh.2@us.af.mil mailto:sara.bierman@us.af.mil mailto:ivonne.bates.1@us.af.mil mailto:vivian.perez@us.af.mil mailto:neal.mcelhannon.1@us.af.mil mailto:randal.mcdaniel@us.af.mil mailto:mark.davis.43@us.af.mil mailto:mark.dent.ctr@us.af.mil mailto:deven.volk.1@us.af.mil mailto:heidi.hunter@us.af.mil mailto:AFIMSC.IZB.Workflow@us.af.mil mailto:AFIMSC.IZB.Workflow@us.af.mil mailto:rodelio.villegas@us.af.mil mailto:michael.scullion.2@us.af.mil mailto:Timothy.poirier@us.af.mil mailto:gerard.gessner@us.af.mil mailto:john.fuson.1@us.af.mil mailto:william.gray.21@us.af.mil mailto:daniel.diaz@us.af.mil mailto:judith.tepperman@us.af.mil mailto:garry.zettersten.ctr@us.af.mil mailto:david.gorham.4@us.af.mil

10 | P a g e

21 AFCEC/CPDI

ANGERMEIER, JOSEPH J IV GS-

13 969-8139 joseph.angermeier.1@us.af.mil Communications EI Work Plan

21 AFCEC/CPDI REYNA, ALBERT A GS-12 969-1529 albert.reyna.1@us.af.mil Communications EI Work Plan Table 1-2. General Contact List

(As of 29 May 2020) mailto:joseph.angermeier.1@us.af.mil mailto:albert.reyna.1@us.af.mil

11 | P a g e

1.3.2. Facilities AMP

Figure 1-2. Contact List: Facilities AMP (as of 1 Jun 2020. See Facilities AMP Workspace Site for updated version:

https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/10758/FacilitiesAMP/SitePages/Home.aspx ) https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/10758/FacilitiesAMP/SitePages/Home.aspx

12 | P a g e

1.3.3. TNAP AMP

Figure 1-3. Contact List: TNAP AMP

(As of 1 Jun 2020. See TNAP Workspace Site for updated version:

https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/10758/tnap/SitePages/Home.aspx ) https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/10758/tnap/SitePages/Home.aspx

13 | P a g e

1.3.4. Utilities AMP

Figure 1-4. Contact List: Utilities AMP

(As of 1 Jun 2020. See Utilities Workspace Site for updated version:

https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/10758/utilityamp/SitePages/Home.aspx ) https://cs2.eis.af.mil/sites/10758/utilityamp/SitePages/Home.aspx

14 | P a g e

2. FY22-26 AFCAMP Methodology

2.0 Purpose of the AFCAMP:

The AFCAMP process is a centralized requirements prioritization process used to govern funds allocation of facility sustainment, restoration and modernization (FSRM), environmental quality (EQ), Military Family Housing (MFH), and Engineering Infrastructure Work Plan (EI WP) funds to select which project will be included in those respective FY budgets. The process uses an asset management approach to manage and address the risk to infrastructure by minimizing life cycle costs to Air Force Real Property. The resultant products from the AFCAMP process are the Integrated Priority List (IPL) and the Integrated Task Order (ITO). The IPL strategically orders all requirements for each task order into a respective prioritized one-to-N list. ITO applies a funding line to each IPL granting authority-to-advertise for those projects listed on each of the various task orders. The AFCAMP process uses these business rules to ensure all requirements are captured in the system of record to ease production of the IPL, which contains thousands of projects.

These business rules also ensure the process is repeatable and transparent to all requirement owners. The AFCAMP and its associated business rules enable scarce resources to be allocated the greatest need first.

2.1. Project Scoring

2.1.1. Measuring and Communicating Risk. The AFCAMP uses a universally recognized risk framework that evaluates the Probability of something occurring and the Consequence if it does occur. This widely accepted approach enables Civil Engineers to simply measure and communicate Risk to Mission and Risk to Airmen.

Within the risk based framework, the prioritization model uses engineering analyses, Sustainment Management System (SMS) data, savings projections, and environmental impact information to evaluate and score each requirement.

Figure 2-1. Risk Matrix

2.1.2. Model Overview. Each requirement submitted for funding via the AFCAMP will be scored using two primary factors: Probability of Failure (PoF) and Consequence of Failure (CoF). Scores for PoF and CoF range from zero to 100 and are multiplied together for the requirement’s total score. For Built Infrastructure requirements, the 100 points for CoF includes both Mission Dependency Index and MAJCOM Priority points.

Technical score is defined as the total score of a project without MAJCOM priority points in the CoF.

15 | P a g e

2.1.3. Probability of Failure (PoF) Score. The PoF Score of a built infrastructure asset is determined using the asset’s condition, compliance, and functionality.

2.1.3.1. Installations use SMS to inventory a facility’s assets and rate their condition. Given the rating, the system will then derive a Condition Index (CI), which is then used to calculate the component or system’s probability of failure (PoF). Built infrastructure projects must have a documented condition assessment no older than five years to be used for PoF scoring.

2.1.3.2. Requirements not driven by condition (i.e. Unspecified Minor Construction (UMC), functionality issues, reconfigurations, non-conditionally driven renovations, code compliance, etc.) reference Chapter 7, Non-Condition Based (NCB) Requirements. The Direct Condition Rating Assessment Matrix will no longer be used.

2.1.3.3. Note: projects not driven by condition often incorporate repair of components that are based on condition (i.e., the reason is often done to limit down time, gain economy of scale, reduce project management burden, etc., and the change “not because of condition” could still be accomplished without this work). One example of this is a renovation of interior space for a beddown. If the roof also needs to be repaired, condition based scoring should be used to score the roof work. The work driven by the need to reconfigure the interior space for the beddown should be scored with NCB scoring factors.

2.1.3.4. Project scoring worksheets and multi-Activity project scoring worksheets are built to accommodate a combination of condition-driven work and work required not based on condition. The resulting project score is a cost-weighted average PoF of the various components of work.

2.1.3.5. For Natural Infrastructure (NI) requirements, PoF is determined based on the regulatory implication of the requirement. Reference Chapter 6, Natural Infrastructure.

Table 2-1. Probability of Failure Score* Model Factor Asset Class PoF Score Equals Generated by Description

Probability of Failure Score

0-100 Points

Built Infrastructure Facilities

Scoring Guidance in Chapter 3* Max 100 Pts BUILDER SMS

Project PoF score is a cost weighted average of PoF scores for all elements (systems, sections, components) within project scope.

Built Infrastructure Energy Assurance

Scoring Guidance in Chapter 18* Max 100 Pts

EACI

Workbook

Project PoF score is a cost weighted average of PoF scores for all elements within project scope and the energy resiliency condition index.

Built Infrastructure Transportation and

Pavements

Scoring Guidance in Chapter 4* Max 100 Pts

PAVER SMS

Project PoF score is a cost weighted average of PoF scores for each pavement section within project scope.

Built Infrastructure Utilities

Scoring Guidance in Chapter 5* Max 100 Pts

UCI Workbook

Project PoF score is a cost weighted average of PoF scores for all utility section or component in the project scope.

16 | P a g e

Natural Infrastructure

Regulatory Implication (Scoring

Guidance in Chapter 6) Max 100 Pts

EQ

Programming

Guide

Regulatory Implication assesses environmental/ regulatory compliance needed to achieve full and sustained compliance with environmental laws.

Score is dependent on type of regulation, executive order, strategic sustainability performance plan goal, DoD/Air Force directive, instruction, and/or policy that must be met.. (scored by AFCEC/CZ Installation Support Section ISS)

*Any projects accomplished in whole or in part not based on condition shall also comply with, Section 7 Non- Condition Based Project Guidance

2.1.4. Consequence of Failure (CoF). CoF for a built infrastructure requirement is based on the Mission Dependency Index (MDI) of the asset and the priority assigned to the requirement by the Requiring MAJCOM.

For NI requirements, CoF is based on regulatory score, mission degradation, environmental risk, stakeholder interest, and significant aspect investment.

2.1.4.1 Mission Dependency Index (MDI): MDI is a measure of an individual asset’s importance to the mission. More information about Tactical MDI can be found in Chapter 10.

2.1.4.2. MAJCOM Priority. Unit, installation, AFIMSC Detachment, and MAJCOM Commander perspectives are critical to providing “ground truth” regarding the impact of each requirement. No score will be associated with priorities assigned at the installation level, although base priorities, BCAMP Proposals (if required by the MAJCOM), and/or tenant input is available to MAJCOMs for consideration during prioritization. Reference the Programming and Prioritization section (paras. 2.3-2.5) later in this Chapter for additional details regarding installation and MAJCOM prioritization.

Table 2-2. Consequence of Failure Model Factor Asset Class Score Equals Generated by Description

Consequence of Failure

0-100 Points

Built

MDI x 0.6 ACES-RP or NexGen IT

Mission Dependency Index (MDI) Only AFIMSC/IZB approved MDI variances are permitted. The T-MDI is a 0-100 score, which is then multiplied by 0.6.

MAJCOM

Priority Points x 0.4

N/A

MAJCOM Priority Points will be allocated by PRV. #1 priority will receive 100 pts. Points decrease proportionally based on the number of MAJCOM priorities. Each are then multiplied by 0.4.

Natural

(scored by

AFCEC/CZ

Installation

Support Section

ISS)

Regulatory Mission Implication

(70%)

EQ Programming Guide

Regulatory Mission Implication assesses the mission consequences of failure to comply with environmental/regulatory standards.

Mission Degradation

(15%)

EQ Programming Guide

Mission Degradation assesses potential loss of mission capability.

Environmental Risk (5%)

EQ Programming Guide

Environmental Risk assesses occurrence likelihood (unlikely, seldom, occasional, likely, or frequent).

Stakeholder Interest (5%)

EQ Programming Guide

Stakeholder Interest measures potential public reaction or legal action that may impact the local mission.

Significant Aspect Investment

(5%)

EQ Programming Guide

Significant Aspect Investment Score is based on the type of aspect (HazWaste, air, water, fuel, natural or cultural resources, EIAP), whether its impacts are AF wide or Base level and Return on Investment (ROI)

17 | P a g e

2.1.5. Scoring Cost Savings Projects. Energy savings and other savings opportunities will be scored with the expectation that any requirement with a Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) greater than or equal to 1.0 will be considered for funding as a Savings Requirement. Energy savings that also makes the mission demonstrably more resilient will be considered down to an SIR of 0.8. AFCEC will group requirements with similar SIRs into “wedges” and strategically place wedges in the draft IPL for consideration and approval by AFCEC’s AFCAMP Governance. See para.2.2.3.4 for a further explanation of “wedges”. For instructions and details on calculating cost savings, and required validation documents, reference the Cost Savings (Chapter 8), Energy Savings (Chapter 9), and Mission and Energy Assurance (M&EA) Guidance (Chapter 18) sections.

Table 2-3. Cost Savings Model Factor Asset Class Score Equals Generated by Description

Savings to Investment Ratio Built Infrastructure

Scoring Guidance in Chapters 8 & 9. Cost Savings for Savings-

Only Projects

SIR >= 1.0

(0.8 with Resiliency Aspects)

Savings Calculator or BLCC

Projects will be grouped by SIR into wedges (e.g. All Savings Requirements with SIR >1) and placed in IPL to align w/ AF Goals.

2.1.6. Program Stability Points. Observation and analysis of execution statistics for the last several years has shown that requirements that were more fully developed and planned, prior to advertisement and award, experience fewer delays and less cost growth. To reward program stability, requirements identified in previous AFCAMPs will be given a 2 percent increase to the total score (NTE 10,000 point Revised Total Score) for the FY22-26 AFCAMP. In order to receive the 2 percent increase, a requirement competing in the FY22-26 AFCAMP must have been identified on a final Integrated Priority Lists (IPLs) in FY18 or later.

2.1.7. Scoring Work in Multiple Facilities. First, reference AFI 32-1020 to determine whether work in multiple facilities can or cannot be combined into a single project for programming purposes. If authorized, a scoring worksheet should be prepared to score the work each facility independently. Next, a cost weighted average should be used to determine the overall MDI and PoF Score for the requirement. The Multi Activity Worksheet (MAW) as described in para.13.2.4.3. is available in the CAMP Playbook Toolbox to accomplish this calculation.

2.1.8. Scoring Work in Multi-Use Facilities. See para.10.1.5.1 for use of T-MDI in scoring multiple use facilities, where there are multiple CATCODEs assigned to a facility. A scoring worksheet should be prepared to score the work each CATCODE (T-MDI) independently. Next, a cost weighted average should be used to determine the overall MDI and PoF Score for the requirement. The Multi Activity Worksheet (MAW) as described in para.13.2.4.3. is available in the CAMP Playbook Toolbox to accomplish this calculation.

2.1.9. Scoring Projects Spanning Multiple AMPs. If a single requirement includes work from several AMPs (e.g., a facility renovation with some exterior site-work (Uniformat II, Section G), such as pavement and utility work), a PoF Score and MDI should be calculated for each portion of the project using the appropriate scoring worksheet, and a cost weighted average using the MAW as described above and in para.13.2.4.3. should be used to determine the final scores:

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 =

(𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑥𝑥 𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃) + (𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐴𝐴𝐴𝐴𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑥𝑥 𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃) + (𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑥𝑥 𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃)

𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃

𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 =

(𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃) + (𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃) + (𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 𝑥𝑥 𝑈𝑈𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹 𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃)

𝑇𝑇𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝐹𝐹𝐹𝐹 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃

2.2. AFCAMP Funding Programs & Eligibility

As mentioned above in para.2.0 above, the AFCAMP is a centralized budgeting process used to govern funds allocation of facility sustainment, restoration and modernization (FSRM), environmental quality (EQ), Military Family Housing (MFH), and Engineering Infrastructure Work Plan (EI WP) funds. Each funding program

18 | P a g e develops their own tasking orders, which contain the list of projects within the budget for a particular FY. Those lists are combined into an Integrated Tasking Order (ITO). Only eligible projects of the fund sources will be considered for inclusion in the AFCAMP IPL for centralized funding.

2.2.1. Single, 5 Year, Rolling IPL. Installations should identify all requirements seeking centralized funding in FY22 through FY26. Requirements programmed for FY22 will be prioritized for funding and execution in FY22. Each tasking order within the AFCAMP will produce a single prioritized list that incorporates all of their respective requirements. Additionally, the IPL will span five years, enabling better planning, design, and contracting actions for projects, seamless execution of end of year funds, and a smooth transition from one fiscal year to the next.

2.2.2. Timing: All requirements programmed for funding in FY22 must be able to be executed by the 3rd quarter of FY22. Projects not able to meet that deadline due to logistical, contracting, or host nation coordination requirements, etc., must be programmed for a later FY.

2.2.3. FSRM Centralized Funding - Planning and Construction Tasking Orders (PTO and CTO): Centralized funding addresses projects in Program Element Code (PEC) xxx76F including Element of Expense Investment Code (EEIC) 522xx (Restoration Repair and Modernization Repair), 529xx (Unspecified Minor Construction (UMC)), 532xx, and 536xx. Generally, Restoration Repairs which are the result of a fire or natural disaster should be paid by Storm Damage funding, which is requested through AFIMSC/RM. Centralized funding also includes PEC xxx78F, EEIC 524XX (Sustainment Repair), but does not include projects which are predominantly EEIC 521xx (Sustainment Maintenance). It also includes much of PEC xxx93.

2.2.3.1. AFCAMP Floor: Minimum submittal (‘floor’) threshold values and exceptions to these amounts are provided in AFI32-1020, Para.2.12. The current thresholds as of the latest publication (18 Dec 2019) are $2.0M for Sustainment Repair (EEIC 524XX) and $1.0M for Restoration and Modernization Repair (EEIC 522XX).

Threshold exceedance is based on the predominant EEIC and the total cost of the project.

Figure 2-2. AFI 32-1020 Para.2.12.1. AFCAMP Floor

Exceptions to this floor listed in para.2.12.4 allow projects of any value to be submitted for centralized funding if they meet any of the exception criteria listed.

19 | P a g e

Figure 2-3. AFI 32-1020 Para.2.12.4. AFCAMP Floor Exemptions

2.2.3.2. Addition of AFCAMP Floor Exemption #6, Para.2.12.4.6. to AFI 32-1020, “Projects in support of an AF Strategic Basing Action as defined in Paras.1.6 and 1.7 of AFI 10-503 “Strategic Basing”. Per Para.1.6. of AFI 10-503, a Basing Action is any action (i.e. activation, inactivation, adjustment) that results in the increase, decrease, and/or movement of units, missions, manpower authorizations, and or weapon systems on AF real property, meeting the list of criteria provided in para.1.7. The term “Beddown” is considered the execution of an approved basing action. Per para.1.7.2., AF strategic basing decisions are approved by the Secretary of the Air Force (SecAF) or delegated authority. Generally, the owning organization (lead MAJCOM) should POM for and provide funding for these projects, thus they will be prioritized by the requiring MAJCOM. FSRM program funding should be not be used if mission owner funding becomes available at a later point in time. Responsibility for programming requirements will remain at the installation. Projects meeting this criteria may be submitted for the FY22-26 AFCAMP;

however, AFI 32-1020 must be amended in the form of a Policy Guidance Memo (PGM) before these projects are eligible for inclusion into the CTO.

2.2.3.3. Planning Tasking Order / 5-Yr IPL Development. Projects programmed as FY23 through FY26 will only be considered for planning or design funds if required/requested (see Chapter 19, Planning & Design for more information). Advance planning is highly encouraged along with consultation with AF sub-AMP or AMP Managers to validate CoAs, CoA selection, project scope, and timing.

2.2.3.4. FSRM Funding Sub-Categories (“Wedges”): Some projects are scored & prioritized in a business case set-aside, where they compete for funds from the FSRM budget, which are set-aside for those specific priorities. Funding amounts for each of these set asides is determined through AFCEC’s AFCAMP Governance process each year. These include, but are not limited to:

• AFCEC Enterprise Contract Support (i.e. Pavements Inspections)

• Planning Tasking Order

• Design

• Troop Training Projects (RED HORSE & CTS)

• NRG/Savings

• Demo & Demo/Consolidation

• Lajes Real Property Payback

2.2.3.5. Funding Execution: AFCEC/CFTS manages distribution of funding from the FSRM account and maintains the checkbook. Once the CTO and PTO are issued, those projects within the approved budget (Tasking Order) will submit funding requests to AFCEC/CFTS. See the “CTO Business Rules” posted on the AFCEC/CFT SharePoint site at https://portal.afcec.hedc.af.mil/CF/CFT/CTO/SitePages/Home.aspx for further guidance.

2.2.4. Environmental Tasking Order (ETO): Centralized funding includes CZ-validated environmental requirements falling in PECs xxx53, xxx54, and xxx56.

2.2.5. Military Family Housing Tasking Order (MFHTO): Eligible Family Housing projects include projects funded by EEIC 722XX.

https://portal.afcec.hedc.af.mil/CF/CFT/CTO/SitePages/Home.aspx

20 | P a g e

2.2.6. Engineering Installation Work Plan (EI WP): Eligible communications infrastructure projects includes projects funded by PEC 33004F.

2.3 FSRM Programming and Prioritization (CTO and PTO projects)

2.3.1. Requirements Definition. Project requirements must be defined adequately to understand the scope of the project and the need for the project. Alternatives must be sufficiently analyzed. Cost Estimating shall meet the requirements of the Cost Estimating Improvement Program (CEIP) with costs sufficiently developed to minimize budgetary impacts. See Chapter 19 for the Comprehensive Planning Platform (CPP) vector check process and Chapter 13 for validation documentation guidance and further information about requirements definition.

2.3.2. Prioritization. Installations and MAJCOMs should prioritize all requirements, regardless of FY in a single 1-n list. When building the IPL, AFCEC/CPDI will isolate the FY22 requirements, and renumber priorities within the single FY, ensuring there are no gaps and all priority points are allocated appropriately. Once the fund line has been established, requirements below the line will be rolled to the next FY for consideration, using the overall 1-n priority to determine relative priority in later FYs. See graphic below for additional/alternate explanation:

Figure 2-4. FY22-26 MAJCOM Prioritization

A single prioritized list provides an accurate picture of the relative importance of all requirements, allowing more effective planning and use of design funds as well as early engagement of AMP and Sub-AMP managers.

Installation and MAJCOM priorities are not locked, and can be adjusted each AFCAMP cycle. As a result, there may be some changes to the list from year to year, however this advance look provides a more reliable prediction of what requirements will be competitive, allowing AFCEC to more effectively distribute limited planning and design funds to requirements that are likely to be funded in the near future.

Note, there should not be any duplicate priorities for installations or MAJCOMs, with the exception of projects which are programmatically one requirement as defined by AFI32-1032 and which are intended to be executed together. Reference the NexGen IT Capital Project Programming and Execution Standards Guide for additional information regarding prioritization of NexGen IT opportunities.

2.3.3. MAJCOM Priority Allocation. MAJCOMs are assigned a fixed number of priorities that earn points towards a requirement’s Consequence of Failure (CoF). The number of priorities per MAJCOM is proportional to the Sustainment Plant Replacement Value (PRV) of real property administered by that MAJCOM, with a minimum number of priorities established for smaller MAJCOMs (AFDW, AFSOC, USAFA).

https://portal.afcec.hedc.af.mil/CF/CFT/MILCON/Shared%20Documents/Data%20Management%20Guides/Tririga%20Capital%20Project%20Programming%20and%20Execution%20Data%20Standards.pdf https://portal.afcec.hedc.af.mil/CF/CFT/MILCON/Shared%20Documents/Data%20Management%20Guides/Tririga%20Capital%20Project%20Programming%20and%20Execution%20Data%20Standards.pdf

21 | P a g e

2.3.3.1. Total Number: Total number of priorities is calculated by approximating the estimated total budget, minus the projected carry-over from the current FY (cost growth, ERRs. etc). This will determine the amount of new authority that can be provided. Then, the amount of new authority will be divided by the average submitted project cost to determine the total number of AF priorities. This number will be multiplied by the MAJCOM’s percentage share of the Sustainment PRV to determine the number of MAJCOM priorities.

2.3.3.2. Priority Points: Each MAJCOM’s first priority will receive maximum points (100x0.4=40). Priority points decrease proportionally for each priority until the maximum number of priorities for the MAJCOM is reached.

2.3.3.3. MAJCOM Priority Allocation - Calculation Example:

Figure 2-5 MAJCOM Priority Allocation

2.3.4. Removal of Built Infrastructure Requirements without Priorities. Priorities (both installation and MAJCOM) must be assigned to all built infrastructure requirements seeking funding via the AFCAMP, with the exception of requirements competing as “Saving Projects” with SIR >= 1.0 or stand-alone demolition projects.

Although no points are awarded beyond a MAJCOM’s limit, assignment of a priority demonstrates a requirement is valid for consideration. Built infrastructure requirements without a base and MAJCOM Priority, or with a priority of 0 or 999, will be removed from the IPL.

2.3.5. Phased Projects. In some cases, operational and financial constraints necessitate the phasing of large projects over multiple years. In order to ensure phased projects are not penalized and that later phases remain competitive:

- All phases of project should have the same technical score.

- Condition Index (CI) and Probability of Failure (PoF) should be based on entire scope, not individual phases.

- MAJCOMs should maintain same priority for all phases in subsequent years.

- The title of the project should end with Phase # or Ph# (with # being the phase number).

- See the AF/A4C business rules for FSRM DD1391 Writing for project numbering and suffix requirements.

If MAJCOM priority is maintained, the individual phases will be guaranteed inclusion in the CTO. If a MAJCOM elects to change the priority assigned to phases from year to year, no guarantee of funding is provided, and project will compete based on total score.

2.3.6. Tenant Requirements. If a tenant requires an R&M project including renovation, upgrade, or modernization in order to meet their specific mission need, the requirement is the responsibility of the tenant’s parent MAJCOM to advocate for and prioritize. Host installation CE squadrons shall coordinate with all tenants to ensure requirements are identified, programmed in accordance with the AFCAMP Business rules, and the appropriate validation documents are prepared. However, when programming, the tenant’s parent MAJCOM should be entered as the Requiring Command and a base priority of “700”. Entering the correct Requiring Command in the database of record will map the requirement to the appropriate MAJCOM for prioritization.

Tenant units should be proactive and communicate requirements to their host installation and MAJCOM to ensure they are not overlooked.

Sustainment repair requirements (EEIC 524) will be the responsibility of the host installations and MAJCOMs for programming and prioritizing. If a modernization upgrade or repair (EEIC 522) is not being driven by the tenant’s specific mission need, the Host Installation’s MAJCOM will be the Requiring Command.

22 | P a g e

Specific Host-Tenant Agreements or Joint Service Agreements should be consulted to clarify responsibilities of all parties at each installation. Tenants should be notified by their host of their rights to attend facilities boards and other prioritization venues so they can advocate, as necessary, for host requirements that affect their mission.

2.3.7. Requirements on Non-AF Owned Installations. The policy guidance below is generic to operation of Joint Bases and also generally applies to AF tenants on non-DoD installations. Specific installation host-tenant agreements, Memorandums of Agreement (MOA) or Joint Base supplemental guidance should be consulted to clarify responsibilities of the supported and supporting Components of the installation led by other services or other departments.

2.3.7.1. Joint Basing Sustainment & Restoration Policy Guidance: Per para 4.3 of the DoD supplemental Guidance for Implementing and Operating a Joint Base, the supporting Component shall sustain and restore all existing facilities at their Joint Base. Therefore, a project at a joint base hosted by another service is not eligible for sustainment funding unless otherwise specified in a supplemental MOA.

2.3.7.2. Joint Basing Modernization Policy Guidance: Per para.4.4 of the DoD supplemental Guidance, the supporting Component is responsible for modernization of all installation support facilities and common infrastructure at the Joint Base. The supporting and supported Components shall specifically identify and document all the Installation support facilities and common infrastructure in the Joint Base MOA. For all other facilities [including those used solely by the tenant], the component generating the modernization requirement is responsible for funding the modernization.

2.3.8.3. Joint Basing Minor Construction Policy Guidance: Per para.4.5 of the DoD supplemental Guidance, the component generating the new construction requirement is responsible for programming the necessary planning, design, construction and sustainment funding.

2.3.8.4. Support: Since AF tenants on non-AF owned installations are responsible to fund modernization and minor construction for their facilities, the parent/requiring MAJCOM and/or AFIMSC Detachment must ensure requirements are identified and properly programmed, scored, and required validation documents are prepared/ submitted if eligible for AFCAMP funding. This may involve assessment of the existing condition of the facility for any condition based work. This should be accomplished by the MAJCOM, AFIMSC Detachment, or an installation designated to support the tenant. The requiring MAJCOM is responsible for prioritizing and advocating for those requirements.

2.4. MFH Programming and Prioritization.

MFH requirements will utilize a separate set of MAJCOM priorities. See Chapter 16, Family Housing for additional information.

2.5. EI WP Programming and Prioritization.

EI WP cost elements will be prioritized using guidance established in Chapter 21, The Air Force Engineering Installation Work Plan for additional information.

23 | P a g e

3. FY22-26 AFCAMP Facilities Guidance

Asset Class Specific Guidance

3.1. Constraints and Section Specific Guidance

3.1.1. Condition Based Requirements

3.1.1.1. Facility Assessments. In order compete for centralized funding through the AFCAMP, all 7 key systems within a facility must be assessed in BUILDER, not just the items included in the scope of work. If all key systems are not assessed, the project will be ineligible for funding. If the facility does not contain one or more of the key systems, make a note in the comments section of the PSW. Ensure the components and their respective quantities which are part of the condition-based scope of work have been appropriately loaded into the SMS Builder database and are available for project scoring.

3.2.1.2. Determining Probability of Failure (PoF) Score: Use BUILDER SMS Condition Index (CI) at the Component [BCCI] level for each component in the project. This calculation is automated by the Facility

PSW.

If CI < 60: PoF = 80+(CI x 1/3)

If 60 ≤ CI ≤ 80: PoF = 100

If CI > 80: PoF = 100 - [(CI -80) x 5]

3.1.1.3. Determining Overall Project Probability of Failure (PoF) Score. Use a cost weighted average of all PoF Scores in the scope of work:

Project PoF = (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃1 x Cost1) + (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃2× Cost2) + …

Total Project Cost

Maximum 100 Pts

3.1.1.4. Consequence of Failure (CoF). CoF is calculated using the requirement’s Scoring MDI and MAJCOM Priority Points. When programmed at the installation level, only the Scoring MDI can be calculated and is required to be entered in the database of record. See paragraph 3.2.4 below for instructions on calculating Scoring MDI for a requirement involving multiple facilities.

3.1.2. Non-Condition Based Requirements: Reference Section 7 of this document for Non-Conditioned Based (NCB) scoring process. This includes the scoring of existing or new components which must be added or upgraded to meet a documented code or standard. It also includes scoring of components which do not meet functional requirements.

3.1.3. Requirements with Condition and Non-Condition Based Work. If a project includes both condition and non-condition driven work items, such as a renovation in which spaces are reconfigured (non-condition) and finishes (paint, carpet, etc.) are replaced (condition), each item in the scope of work must be scored using the appropriate methodology, then combined using a cost weighted average to determine the final PoF.

Weighted Average PoF = (Condition Driven PoF x Cost) + (Non-Condition Driven PoF × Cost)

3.1.4. Multiple Facilities. If the scope of a project includes work in multiple facilities, first consult AFI 32-1020,…