P-Plan_Revision_1_for_Implementation_of_PAD_12-03_-_Vol_3 1 .pdf

Headquarters United States Air Force

(HQ USAF)

Programming Plan (P-Plan) Revision 1 for Implementation of Enterprise-Wide Civil Engineer Transformation (PAD 12-03), Volume 3

7 January 2014

Headquarters United States Air Force

Washington, D.C.

P-Plan for Implementation of Enterprise-Wide Civil Engineer Transformation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX II – NOTIONAL OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS AND OPTIMIZATION (R&O)

MANPOWER ALIGNMENT

APPENDIX III – AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER (AFCEC) ASSET MANAGEMENT ... 5

APPENDIX IV – PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN – SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND

MODERNIZATION PROJECTS OR OPPORTUNITIES

APPENDIX V – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS (EIAP)

APPENDIX VI – EARLY PLANNING AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR NEPA COMPLIANCE

APPENDIX VII – SAF/IE MEMORANDUM “PROPONENT RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE EIAP”

APPENDIX VIII – SAF/IE MEMORANDUM “ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING FUNCTION

SUPPORT OF THE AIR FORCE’S EIAP”

APPENDIX IX – A7C MEMORANDUM “AIR FORCE’S EIAP IMPROVEMENT INITIATIVE”

APPENDIX X – ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

APPENDIX XI – EQ ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS

APPENDIX XII – EQ STRATEGIC COMMUNICATION PLAN

APPENDIX XIII – EQ CBR TEAR OUTS

APPENDIX XIV – INSTALLATIONS CoE ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESSES

APPENDIX XV – INSTALLATIONS CoE REAL PROPERTY TRANSACTION PROCESSES . 136

APPENDIX XVI – INSTALLATIONS CoE REPI OVERVIEW PROCESSES

APPENDIX XVII – CFO PROCESSES

APPENDIX XVIII – ACRONYMS

APPENDIX XIX – GLOSSARY

Appendix II Notional Operations R&O Manpower Alignment

APPENDIX II – NOTIONAL OPERATIONS REQUIREMENTS AND OPTIMIZATION (R&O) MANPOWER ALIGNMENT

1.0 The notional manpower alignment is provided as a recommendation to commanders as a framework; absolute best case, for a large base, and absolute worst case, for a small base. Commanders will continue to complete all manpower actions appropriately to meet mission needs and required asset management deliverables as detailed in this P-Plan and in the base level fight tasks (BLFT). Commanders will also view R&O leadership positions as key development and career progression opportunities for lieutenants, senior non-commissioned officers (SNCO), and civilians.

Table II – 1: R&O Section Mission Essential Level 1 Tasks

Appendix II Notional Operations R&O Manpower Alignment

2.0 Units that are only manned to field the bare minimum authorizations in R&O Section will be required to dual hat the new-to-ops full-time equivalents (FTE). For example, instead of separate electrical engineers to manage interior electric, electrical distribution, and industrial control systems (ICS), individuals at bases which can only field one electrical engineer in operations flight (CEO) will be responsible for managing all of those programs and delivering all required deliverables detailed in the BLFTs. Likewise, those three engineers will have to be dual hatted in the R&O shop leadership position (ideally a company grade officer [CGO]).

Appendix III AFCEC Asset Management

APPENDIX III – AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER CENTER (AFCEC) ASSET MANAGEMENT

1.0 BACKGROUND

1.1. This approach integrates requirements to deliver installation support services needed for mission execution, provides the capability to advocate for resources, and then supports allocation of the necessary resources to provide, operate, maintain, and protect facilities, infrastructure, and installations required for effective mission support worldwide at their lowest life-cycle cost. The Planning and Integration (P&I) Directorate will provide careful informed analysis of asset management products and strategic direction based on input from others, as follows:

1.1.1. Provide centralized investment planning and data fidelity/accountability through activity management plan (AMP) management in coordination with other AFCEC directorates’ sub-AMP managers and the Asset Visibility Division.

1.1.2. Take the lead in asset management process training (staff, “customers” stakeholders, and major command [MAJCOM] leadership).

1.1.3. Align enterprise efforts to program objective memorandum (POM)/budget cycle/other external drivers/needs (e.g., airspace and ranges, weapons systems acquisition, test and evaluation).

2.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE

2.1. Defining the basis of the future Air Force enterprise and the value of our ability to internally look at anomalies and trends in our sub-AMPS and subsequently propose new requirements are the imperatives we are incorporating in the civil engineer transformation (CET) process. The asset management principled AMP accomplishes the following (through AMPs and comprehensive asset management plans [CAMP] developed at every echelon):

2.1.1. Links the installation development plan (IDP) and POM defense (strategy to task) and considers externalities

2.1.2. Proactively identifies opportunities to enhance Air Force enterprise performance

2.1.3. Informs MAJCOM/commanders and stakeholders

2.1.4. Balances risk to mission/airmen

2.1.5. Provides planned investment to meet mission needs

2.1.6. Assesses investment plan effectiveness to meet strategic goals (base, MAJCOM, Air Force)

2.1.7. Preserves “one base/one wing (WG)/one boss” concept to develop future Air Force senior leaders who advocate for centralized funding programs

2.1.8. Preserves sustainment capabilities (facilities, infrastructure, environment, mission) for installation complexes and support activities

2.1.9. Centralizes/standardizes prioritization processes and optimizes the delivery of installation support to enable enterprise-wide advocacy and allocation of resources to reduce “risk to mission” and “risk to airmen”

2.1.10. Preserves focus on quality of life and mission using asset management key performance indicators (KPI), targets, and measures; and Air Force Common Output Level Standards (AF COLS) centered on best life-cycle value

2.1.11. Leverages strategic sourcing opportunities to reduce operational costs

2.1.12. Leverages industry, public sector, and sister services lessons learned to optimize processes

3.0 USE OF THE AMP PROCESS: The civil engineer (CE) AMP process supports midterm investment planning by guiding the development of requirements and opportunities needed across the future years defense program (FYDP)+2 to achieve required program objectives. Program objectives are based on mission dictates, strategic plan direction, AF COLS, as well as built and natural (B&N) infrastructure criteria needed to sustain installations. In many cases specific data sets (such as facility condition assessments, energy audits, and space utilization) will help identify needed investments. AMPs at all levels (base, MAJCOM, and headquarters Air Force [HAF]) are developed, building on one another to lay out the necessary investment profile and identify the specific un-prioritized requirements/opportunities that the POM would provide funding for in the out years. The P&I Directorate represents the HAF level and builds the Air Force activity management plan (AF AMP) for each required program activity (e.g., facilities, utilities, airfield, and transportation). The actual development of the activity requirements and opportunities is the responsibility of the AFCEC directorate where specific sub-AMP managers (e.g., program managers) are assigned. The P&I Directorate where the AMP managers are assigned work with the other directorate sub-AMP managers to optimize potential investments to ensure the best solution is identified to solve the need.

3.1. As we plan for the upcoming budget execution year, the requirements and opportunities identified for that year are evaluated further by each level (base, MAJCOM, and HAF) and the CAMPs are developed with a priority assigned to each planned investment. The P&I Directorate, representing the HAF level, in concert with other AFCEC directorate sub-AMP managers develops the recommended investment priorities for the Air Force comprehensive asset management plan (AFCAMP). This process that produces the AFCAMP involves the directorates initiating the prioritization process by applying business rules and tools that result in the recommended functional integrated priority list(s) (IPL). The IPLs are evaluated further by the P&I Directorate to look for cross functional optimization opportunities and adjust priorities as needed to meet any cross cutting goals and objectives (e.g., a functional sub-AMP manager might recommend a military construction [MILCON] investment to meet a mission need, but deeper analysis might indicate an enhanced use lease [EUL] opportunity may provide better value for the Air Force both from a mission and economic standpoint). Once investment priorities are determined and approved by the installations governance structure (IGS), the follow on work of project programming or opportunity acquisition occurs in advance of execution.

3.2. Enterprise management concepts: In order to properly analyze data to support decision making on allocation of dwindling levels of facility support funds, engineers have adopted a disciplined, standardized approach to acquiring, sustaining, modernizing, and retiring our installation, or “weapon system”, based on industry best practices and lessons learned. The role of planning and mission sustainability take a prominent position in analyzing information in order to make sound, sustainable investment decisions. These optimized investment processes use enterprise-wide, centralized asset management principles to ensure the readiness and sustainability of our B&N infrastructure, and to operate and sustain our bases at the best life-cycle value possible.

Centralized management and investment (at the HAF and/or field operating agency [FOA] level) of facilities, infrastructure, and environmental accounts ensures scarce resources are applied to the highest priority requirements across the Air Force inventory in the most effective and efficient manner.

4.0 Asset Management: Asset management can be defined as the expertise and processes required to integrate enterprise-wide B&N infrastructure asset investment decisions using factors including condition assessments, strategic policy directives, operational mission requirements, laws, executive orders (EXORD), and Congressional interest items. The asset management process takes requirements and through comprehensive planning efforts, aligns them into long-term and short-term investment execution strategies. In short, the asset management process facilitates a centralized approach to B&N asset resource allocation decisions across the Air Force. This process results in decisions from a single enterprise perspective rather than as a series of disparate organizations. The proposed process is made up of four distinct steps: 1) understanding what is in the B&N inventory and determining the condition of those assets, 2) identifying cost and benefit of correcting deficiencies or of continuing to operate the asset, 3) identifying program requirements to address most critical deficiencies, and 4) executing the program. The end product results in an IPL of requirements to address the most critical requirements first. For the sake of clarity, the term “asset management” refers to steps 1-4 in their entirety while the term “portfolio management” refers to steps 3-4.

5.0 Comprehensive Planning: Comprehensive planning establishes a systematic framework for informed decision-making on the physical development of Air Force installations and its environs. It provides an integrated context and advocacy for the multiple Air Force processes supporting and sustaining current and future missions. It relies on active Air Force stakeholder participation in the development of sustainable plans and promotes compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and policies.

5.1. The IDP is the product of the installation comprehensive planning process. The IDP link to the asset management process is through the IDP’s capital improvements plan (CIP).

The CIP identifies development actions needed to support current and projected mission informing the AMP cycle. As the AMP process proceeds from the AF AMP to current-year execution, changes in anticipated and actual resource allocation can impact the IDP when proposed projects or opportunities are or are not funded. These changes, in addition to the insertion of unanticipated requirements resulting from near-term mission changes and/or other legislation or regulatory change, can drive changes in proposed project scope or timing. Consequently, the IDP must be continually evaluated and revised to reflect changing priorities and fiscal constraints. Figure III - 1 shows the interaction of the comprehensive planning and investment planning processes.

Figure III - 1: Investment Planning Connections

6.0 Program Management: A program is a group of related requirements (projects/programs) managed together to obtain specific benefits and controls that would likely not occur if these requirements were managed individually. Programs are not always a group of related projects or opportunities. There are programs that function independent of any specific project or opportunity and may actually be the source of projects or opportunities. While project management focuses on delivering the specific objectives of the project – program management is focused on achieving the strategic objectives and benefits of the integrated program. The program manager is responsible for rolling up information from each of the projects/programs and ensuring they drive towards achieving the business objectives. This requires each of the project managers to manage their individual projects or opportunities in a fashion integrating into the overall program plan. The program manager is responsible for active monitoring, analysis, and corrective action as needed across their entire program. This involves considering risk management strategies not only for each individual project or opportunity but also analyzing the ‘collective’ risk across the program. The same goes for quality management, schedule management, cost management, communications, etc.

7.0 Portfolio Management: Portfolio management is a term used to describe the analysis and centralized management of a collection of plans, multiple requirements or projects, opportunities, programs, and possibly sub-portfolios based on numerous key characteristics grouped together to facilitate effective management of efforts to meet strategic objectives. These projects, opportunities, or programs are not necessarily interdependent or directly related. This typically includes identifying, prioritizing, and authorizing projects, opportunities, and programs to achieve specific strategic Air Force objectives. The fundamental objective of portfolio management is to determine the optimal mix and sequencing of proposed needs to best achieve the Air Force’s overall mission goals - typically expressed in terms of hard economic measures, mission strategic goals, or technical strategic goals - while honoring constraints imposed by leadership or internal/external real-world factors. Portfolio management is a process combining aspects of what many would call “art and science” into an integrated process.

The tools developed through the asset management process (AMPs and CAMPs) will be straightforward analytical tools providing both quantitative and qualitative data to support near- and far-term priorities. These tools will facilitate building of straightforward AF AMP and AFCAMP products outside of emotion or lobbying efforts. For the sake of simplicity, this process will be referred to as “science.” While the “science” process is data and time intensive, it is fairly intuitive and politically benign. Unfortunately, this process cannot comprehensively account for all of the senior policy and priorities, inter-and intra-departmental mandates, laws, EXORDs, and other macro-considerations. The process of taking the initial AF AMP and AFCAMP tools and integrating these senior policy perspectives represents the “art” within this process. Ultimately, implementation considerations would provide the perfect balance of both “art” and “science” or policy and execution to be effective.

8.0 Balancing Risk: Risk is the potential a chosen action or activity (including the choice of inaction) will lead to a loss or an undesirable outcome. The notion implies a choice having an influence on the outcome exists (or existed). The definition of risk is the effect of uncertainty on objectives. In this definition, uncertainties include events (which may or may not happen) and uncertainties caused by the lack of or by ambiguous information. It also includes both negative and positive impacts on objectives.

Economic risks can be manifested in lower budgets or higher expenditures than expected. The causes can be many, for instance, the hike in the price for raw materials, the lapsing of deadlines for construction of a new operating facility, the loss of key personnel, the change of leadership direction/priority, or natural disasters. Life, safety, health, and welfare are separate practice areas, however they are often linked. The reason for this is typically to do with organizational management structures however there are strong links between these disciplines. One of the strongest links between these is that a single risk event may have impacts in all these areas, albeit over differing timescales.

8.1. AIR FORCE ENTERPRISE RISK ASPECTS:

8.1.1. What is considered “unacceptable” risk?

8.1.2. How do we define risk in terms of mission failure, and/or cost?

8.1.3. Where is the line between installation failure and mission failure? How many degrees of separation are considered reasonable?

8.1.4. How do we resolve competing or complimentary requirements while minimizing risk across the Air Force enterprise?

8.2. SOLUTION: Centralized Air Force portfolio management approach

8.2.1. Enterprise-wide look at most critical investment needs

8.2.2. Increase effectiveness and efficiency in resource-constrained environment

8.2.3. Make investment decisions based on balancing risk to mission, risk to airmen, and allocating resources to ensure we meet Air Force strategic objectives

9.0 AFCEC AMP ALIGNMENT/DUTIES

9.1. Overall, Air Force AMP mangers will reside in the P&I Directorate and will integrate the Air Force enterprise through a matrix organization with the sub-AMP managers that will reside in the other AFCEC directorates and Centers of Excellence (CoE). See Figure III

- 2 below for alignment.

Figure III - 2: AFCEC AF AMP and Sub-AF AMP Alignment

9.2. P&I AF AMP MANAGER DUTIES:

9.2.1. Holds ultimate responsibility for a system/activity at the Air Force level.

9.2.2. Manages the planning aspect of an activity and integrates the sub-activities into the AF AMP and integration of their activity into the AFCAMP.

9.2.3. Facilitates integration of sub-activity managers’ requirements and priorities into the AF AMP and AFCAMP to assess the activity, identify requirements, and effectively plan, program, budget, and execute resources necessary for optimal lifecycle operation of the activity using a risk-based approach.

9.2.4. Tracks and evaluates goals, metrics, and trends ensuring the activity meets or exceeds all KPIs to deliver optimal service.

9.2.5. Assists in defining/prioritizing projects or opportunities within the respective activity, identifying and working to resolve issues.

9.2.6. Monitors the condition of all inventory management metrics/data in assigned B&N infrastructure and develops guidance to capture the data to report metrics.

9.2.7. Holds functional responsibility to ensure the inventory of B&N assets reflects a sufficient level of detail to manage building/component condition.

9.2.8. Evaluates whether the repair or replacement recommendations from sustainment management system (SMS) (e.g., NexGen IT, BUILDER) are valid by using their knowledge of built assets and its related data.

9.2.9. Reviews and validates built assets facility condition index (FCI) calculated by several SMSs (e.g., NexGen IT, BUILDER). As required, initiates inspection protocols to update compliance inspections (CI) to reflect actual conditions. Ensures that SMS (e.g., NexGen IT, BUILDER) reflects an accurate built asset and real property installed equipment (RPIE) inventory for assigned buildings and that the built asset- RPIE relationships are established.

9.2.10. Works with preventive maintenance (PM) manager (Operations Directorate), PM sub-AMP managers (Operations Directorate), and facilities division to ensure inspection protocols are completed and that condition assessment data in the built asset inventory are updated as a result of preventive maintenance inspection (PMI) results.

9.2.11. Combines requirements to identify trends and solutions in SMS (e.g., NexGen IT, BUILDER) for execution planning and strategic investment planning.

9.2.12. Performs analysis using the FCI, remaining service life (RSL), mission dependency index (MDI), PM/corrective maintenance, and defined condition standards and other factors (non-condition based) to identify requirements that need sustainment, restoration and modernization funding. Provides a complete list of work requirements with parametric cost estimates.

9.2.13. Performs work planning to include development of the maintenance execution plan (MEP), maintenance action plan (MAP), and the long range maintenance plan (LRMP) based on available funds and budgetary constraints. This involves grouping requirements into projects or opportunities and developing a detailed, fundable cost and work estimate for projects or opportunities on the MEP and MAP working with other branches in AFCEC.

9.2.14. Supports development of policy, processes, and resources for those parts of the organization that manage and sustain facilities.

9.2.15. Oversees the overall planning, direction, and timely delivery of AFCEC products and services within the product line.

9.2.16. Facilitates compliance with asset management processes related to B&N asset management; conducts/supports staff assistance visits (SAV)/inspections and compliance visits, as needed.

9.2.17. Monitors and reviews asset management level of service (LoS), targets, and measures metrics.

9.2.18. Ensures that AFCEC staff is provided with asset management training opportunities.

9.2.19. Coordinates Air Force enterprise, MAJCOM, and installation issues that impact resource decisions that cross AFCEC product lines.

9.2.20. Provides the “reachback” capability for asset management investment planning requirements.

9.2.21. Reviews and consolidates inspection requirements for non-PMI items or other specialized inspections.

9.2.22. Coordinates future baseline assessments requirements.

9.2.23. Monitors and reviews LoS (developed by HAF).

9.2.24. Conducts regular quality assurance (QA) reviews of a percentage of condition-based management data in (SMS, NexGen IT, BUILDER) to ensure compliance with processes and procedures.

9.3. AFCEC DIRECTORATE SUB-AMP MANAGER DUTIES:

9.3.1. Ensures accurate accountability of sub-AMP asset inventories.

9.3.2. Condition assessment: monitors continuously sub-activity asset performance and detects any abnormalities.

9.3.3. Standardizes the data, processes, and policies for the entire activity Air Force-wide through playbook ownership.

9.3.4. Evaluates and diagnoses the cause of the abnormalities.

9.3.5. Determines the magnitude and impact of the fault on factors such as energy use, system reliability, and plant operations.

9.3.6. Uses subject matter expertise to inform policy recommendations, makes decision/recommendation on how to correct deficiencies/issues.

9.3.7. Benchmarks sub-activity with industry/government agencies and continuously improves processes and changes playbooks, incorporates best practices.

9.3.8. Tracks and evaluates goals, metrics, and trends.

9.3.9. Ensures requirements are developed using a balanced risk management approach and prepares sub-activity requirements and priorities.

9.3.10. Participates and advocates for sub-activity during AMP and CAMP build.

9.3.11. Finds opportunities to maximize funds (e.g., strategic sourcing, geographic consolidation).

Figure III - 3: Requirements Identification and Solution Selection Process Flow Example

Appendix IV Project Execution Plan – Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization Projects

APPENDIX IV – PROJECT EXECUTION PLAN – SUSTAINMENT, RESTORATION AND

MODERNIZATION PROJECTS OR OPPORTUNITIES

1.0 The purpose of this Project Execution Plan Appendix is to establish roles and responsibilities in regards to centralized sustainment, restoration and modernization program execution. It is important to note that this appendix has been created as an initial guide for this effort. As the centralized sustainment, restoration and modernization program execution continues to develop and mature over time, a more formal program management plan (PMP) will be developed and coordinated. AFCEC Facility Engineering Center of Excellence (FENCE) will have the lead to develop and coordinate the sustainment, restoration and modernization project execution PMP with key stakeholders.

2.0 The P&I Directorate will coordinate and produce Air Force IPLs for the centralized sustainment, restoration and modernization programs each year. The Air Force goal is to complete the IPLs one year (12 months) in advance of the program year of appropriation/execution. This one year lead time will enable selected design agents/construction agents (DA/CA) sufficient time to design projects or opportunities in order to get them ready for early fiscal year (FY) execution goals. In future years (FY14 and beyond), an additional benefit derived from the project lead time will be the ability to review the entire sustainment, restoration and modernization program for strategic sourcing opportunities. Additionally, preliminary design information will be used to inform final project programming as required.

3.0 AFCEC will reach initial operating capability (IOC) in FY 13; however, FY 13 will be a transition year. Air Staff (Air Force Facility Management Division [AF/A7CF]) has developed the FY13 sustainment, restoration and modernization IPLs for execution and the FY14 sustainment, restoration and modernization IPL for design. During development of the FY13 IPLs, several rounds of dialogue with the MAJCOMs have occurred. During these joint reviews, several issues and challenges with the A-file data pull and scoring have been noted, and AFCEC will work with the MAJCOMs and bases to improve these processes. The timeline for the FY13 IPL development is shown below:

Table IV – 1: FY13 IPL Milestones

MILESTONE COMPLETION DATE(S)

Base comprehensive asset management plans (BCAMP) 1-30 Apr 12 - Completed

MAJCOM comprehensive asset management plans (MCAMP) 1-31 May 12 - Completed

Develop AFCAMP 19-21 Jun 12 - Completed

Post AFCAMP draft IPLs to Air Force Civil Engineer (AF/A7C) 13 Jul 12 – Completed

Coordinate with Assistant Secretary of the Air Force Financial Management and Comptroller (SAF/FM) and Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition (SAF/AQ)

19 Jul 12 – Completed

Submit IPL for MAJCOM review and comments 31 Jul 12 – Completed

IPL resolution with MAJCOMS 1 Aug 12 through early Sept 12 – Completed

Draft IPL to CE Council Early Sept 12 – Completed

MAJCOM/Vice Commander (CV) coordination on IPL 24 Sep 12 – Completed

MAJCOM CE Programs Division coordinates Sustainment, Restoration, Modernization, and Demolition (SRM-D) IPL project execution with AFCEC FENCE (AFCEC/CF)

15 Sep – 14 Oct 12 – Completed

Ready to issue authority to advertise (ATA) 15 Oct 12 - Completed

4.0 IPL approval will be accomplished in accordance with (IAW) the IGS outlined in the PAD/P-Plan and summarized here. Following approval by the CE Council, the IPL will be shared with MAJCOM/CVs to identify significant oversights based upon risk to mission and risk to airmen criteria. AF/A7C will adjudicate MAJCOM/CV feedback and issue the final FY13 project or opportunity list and FY14 design program. MAJCOM/CVs can appeal to the Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations, and Mission Support (A4/7) for a change to this project or opportunity list. Any MAJCOM/CVs not satisfied with A4/7 adjudication can appeal to Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force

(VCSAF).

5.0 Once the FY13 centralized sustainment, restoration and modernization IPLs are established, the AFCEC/CF and MAJCOM Engineering Divisions (A7N), with input from the installations, will determine project DA/CA. This coordination effort will ensure all parties understand resident capabilities at the installations and AFCEC/CF and that these capabilities are fully utilized. AFCEC/CF will also work with the MAJCOMs to develop an Automated Civil Engineer System-Project Management (ACES-PM)-based report to provide project-specific information (see sample report in Table IV – 3). Note:

this report will be converted to NexGen IT when the system becomes available.

6.0 In FY13, AFCEC/CF and AF/A7CF will coordinate on the development of the authority to award (ATA) list. Projects or opportunities that require matching sustainment funds, for example, will need assurance from the MAJCOM that these funds will be made available at the time as required to ensure a timely award.

7.0 During FY13, the AFCEC P&I Directorate will continue to stand up its operating capabilities. Throughout FY13, the P&I Directorate will work with Air Staff, MAJCOMs, installations, and other AFCEC directorates to develop and coordinate the FY14 sustainment, restoration and modernization IPLs and FY15 sustainment, restoration and modernization design requirements. AFCEC/CF will communicate with P&I and the MAJCOM A7N staff during the sustainment, restoration and modernization IPL development process to coordinate on the IPLs recommend DA/CA and evaluate opportunities for strategic acquisition. The FY14 sustainment, restoration and modernization IPL and FY15 sustainment, restoration and modernization design requirements development timeline is shown below:

Table IV – 2: FY14 Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization IPL and FY15

Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization Design Requirements Development

Timeline

MILESTONE COMPLETION DATE(S)

BCAMPS Dec 12

MCAMPs Jan-Feb 13

Develop AFCAMP Mar-Apr 13

Distribute AFCAMP draft IPLs for MAJCOM review 1 May 13

FENCE reviews AFCAMP to evaluate DA/CA opportunities and acquisition strategies

1 May 13

Coordinate with SAF/FM and SAF/AQ 15 May 13

IPL resolution with MAJCOMS 30 May 13

Draft IPL to CE Council 10 Jun 13

MAJCOM/CV coordinates on IPL 30 Jun 13 (will work to accelerate this to May in the future)

Ready to issue ATA 15 Sep 13 (will work to accelerate this to Jun in the future)

8.0 To develop candidate projects or opportunities for FY13 centralized year-end straddle A/B or fill/kill, AFCEC/CF will consult with the MAJCOMs and installations to consider all late, highest priority, FY13 projects or opportunities (not executing by the end of the FY) and any FY14 projects or opportunities that are ready to advertise (RTA) by 30 Mar 2013. FY13 projects or opportunities not funded in FY13 (or straddle) will be considered for the FY14 program. MAJCOMs and installations continue to work separate straddle programs for non-centralized programs.

9.0 Once the FY14 centralized sustainment, restoration and modernization IPLs are established, AFCEC/CF and MAJCOM A7Ns, with input from the installations, will determine project DA/CA and acquisition strategies. ACES-PM or A-File reports will be used to manage the execution of sustainment, restoration and modernization projects or opportunities. Automated Civil Engineer System (ACES) or A-File fields required in this report will be decided upon by the MAJCOMs and AFCEC/CF. AFCEC/CF will set up and conduct meetings/teleconferences with the MAJCOMs and installations to finalize DA/CA assignments and acquisition strategies during the MAJCOM IPL review process.

A notional FY14 sustainment, restoration and modernization IPL is shown as follows (this report will be acquired through ACES-PM):

Table IV – 3: FY14 R&M IPL

10.0 The P&I Directorate will have final operating capability (FOC) by 1 Oct 2014. The P&I Directorate will lead the sustainment, restoration and modernization IPL development;

however, P&I to work closely with Air Staff, MAJCOMs, other AFCEC directorates and installations to coordinate the IPL development IAW the IGS. The sustainment, restoration and modernization IPL development milestones and completion dates will be similar to those shown in paragraph 6 above.

11.0 AFCEC/CF will use the following business rules to recommend the DA/CA and acquisition strategies for the sustainment, restoration and modernization IPLs will be as follows:

11.1. Maximize Air Force execution capacity at the installations and FENCE before going to non-Air Force agents (e.g., Corps, Navy Facilities Engineering Command [NAVFAC], General Services Administration [GSA]). Where agreement cannot be reached between MAJCOM and FENCE, resolution will be accomplished IAW the IGS.

11.2. Installation base civil engineers (BCE) will maintain local simplified acquisition of base engineering requirements (SABER) and indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract capabilities and fully utilize these capabilities. Installation BCE IDIQ contracts will include: paving, painting, fencing, and other specialty IDIQ contracts as mission requirements dictate. Local contract vehicles will often provide greater execution flexibility and control for BCEs. Also, BCEs will maximize execution capabilities such as SABER, multiple award construction contracts (MACC) and in-house and architectural and engineering (A&E) design and construction (D&C) capabilities. Installations and MAJCOMs will provide input on those centralized projects or opportunities the installation desire to execute through their local contracting squadron (CONS).

11.3. BCEs will continue to support execution for non-centralized programs, non-appropriated funds, and tenant funded requirements by prioritizing work that they can accomplish locally. Workload that exceeds installation capabilities will be executed through the AFCEC/CF or non-Air Force agents. MAJCOM /A7N approval is required before installations use non-Air Force agents for Air Force funded requirements.

11.4. Fully utilize FENCE execution capabilities. It is recognized that bases have traditionally executed more than 75% of sustainment, restoration and modernization projects or opportunities prior to centralization. Of the ~3300 sustainment, restoration and modernization projects awarded in 2011, only 362 had an award amount larger than $700K. As a general rule, AFCEC/CF is the preferred method of execution for higher dollar value, technically complex sustainment, restoration and modernization projects or

FY Project No MAJCOM Installation Title Status DA CA CAT Nbr PA DSG CWE DSG% Eiap Cert Cd Est Ready to

Advertise Date

Act Ready to

Advertise Date

BID CWE

Act Bid

Opening

2013 FBNV120037B ACC

DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR

FORCE BASE Allied Support HC-130J RECAP RTA ACC ACC 141753 $2,825,000 $0

2013 FBNV090030B ACC

DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR

FORCE BASE Rpr (Renovate) PMEL (1027) BID ACC ACC 218868 $950,000 $0 100 1100000 4-Aug-11

2013 FBNV120037A1 ACC

DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR

FORCE BASE Allied Support HC-130J RECAP RTA ACC ACC 141753 $695,000 $0

2013 FBNV120037A2 ACC

DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR

FORCE BASE Allied Support HC-130J RECAP RTA ACC ACC 141753 $280,000 $0

2013 FBNV120026 ACC

DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR

FORCE BASE Cons (Relocate) Site Utilities (VQ) DSG ACC ACC 824464 $650,000 $0 5 600000

2013 FBNV080052 ACC

DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR

FORCE BASE Rpr ATFP Standoff for Critical Facilities DSG ACC ACC 610249 $700,000 $750,000 5 C 21-Feb-09 21-Feb-09 2500000

2013 FBNV110019B ACC

DAVIS-MONTHAN AIR

FORCE BASE Rpr (Renovate) 358th AMU, Fac 5430 DSG ACC ACC 211177 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 5 opportunities. However. AFCEC/CF will be capable of executing lower dollar value, less technically complex projects or opportunities if needed and requested by installations.

However, as stated above, installation BCEs will maintain IDIQ and SABER capabilities to expeditiously execute projects or opportunities within local capabilities.

11.5. AFCEC/CF and P&I will review the sustainment, restoration and modernization IPLs for execution efficiencies to include: packaging projects or opportunities for standardized designs, whole facility repairs, and packaging similar facility work (e.g., dorm renovations electrical distribution projects or opportunities, airfield paving projects or opportunities) into one design and/or construction effort while being mindful of geographic considerations. AFCEC/CF will consult MAJCOMs prior to finalizing strategies. Other CE tools will also be considered to address requirements (e.g., EUL, disposal, coordination with RED HORSE).

11.6. Once AFCEC/CF capacity is fully utilized, AFCEC/CF, in consultation with the installations and MAJCOMs, will look at non-Air Force agents such as the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and NAVFAC for project or opportunity execution.

AFCEC/CF will also consider using and leveraging non-Air Force agent centers of expertise (e.g., Omaha District Airfield Pavements Center of Expertise) to D&C projects or opportunities.

11.7. Project or opportunity design efforts will start 12 months prior to the execution/appropriation year, once a project or opportunity is 100% design and RTA, the BCE will update ACES to include the design current working estimate (CWE) for installation executed projects or opportunities (Note: AFCEC/CF will update the design CWE for AFCEC/CF executed projects or opportunities). At this time, project or opportunity approval documents will be updated (if required) and revalidated to ensure appropriate approval authority has been obtained. The BCE will request ATA from the MAJCOM. The MAJCOM will validate all National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) actions are completed (via updated ACES screens) prior to requesting ATA from AFCEC/CF. Advertisement of projects or opportunities prior to NEPA completion will only be considered on a by-exception basis; however, projects or opportunities can’t be awarded if NEPA actions are not complete. AFCEC/CF will provide ATA to the MAJCOMs.

11.8. Once project bids are obtained, the project manager will update ACES-PM with the bid information and notify the MAJCOM the project or opportunity is ready for funds to award the project or opportunity. The MAJCOMs will revalidate appropriate project or opportunity approvals have been obtained and validate NEPA compliance. Once these actions are complete, the MAJCOMs will request authority to award (ATAwd) and funds from AFCEC/CF. AFCEC/CF will then notify the AFCEC Chief Financial Office (CFO) to release funds to the execution agent for project award.

12.0 Financial execution of the sustainment, restoration and modernization programs.

12.1. General guidelines:

12.1.1. Focus funds unaccompanied housing (and energy) are not centralized at the AFCEC. They are centralized at AF/A7C in FY13. The projects or opportunities will be selected by the AF/A7CF and funds will be handled by the Air Force Chief Financial Officer (AF/A7CR) and Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Budget (SAF/FMB), which will coordinate on the ATA and work together to determine the percentage of funding to release on ATA (goal 100%). Funds can only be released after initial distribution and the release date is not confirmed until the appropriation is signed. In FY14 the focus funds will reside in operating agency code (OAC) 31 and will be available at initial distribution as detailed in the FY14 execution plan.

12.1.2. Centralized funds for sustainment, restoration and modernization are in OAC 31 (AFCEC) and an execution plan has been submitted to SAF/FM and AFCEC, in coordination with AF/A7CR, will be able to issue ATA on a portion of those funds once the IPL is approved.

12.1.3. Sustainment, restoration and modernization projects or opportunities are not considered new starts and may be executed during continuing resolution authority

(CRA).

12.1.4. Troop training projects: These include RED HORSE in Air Combat Command (ACC), the Pacific Regional Training Center, and United States Air Forces Europe’s (USAFE) Construction Training Squadron. MAJCOM functional leads at ACC, Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), and USAFE will issue a call for troop training projects annually. They will evaluate submissions and ensure sufficient projects or opportunities exist to meet their unique training requirements. Where these are lacking, they will consult P&I to determine if other projects or opportunities of appropriate scope have been submitted in the sustainment, restoration and modernization IPL that fit their capabilities. They will submit their project or opportunity lists to AF/A7CF and AFCEC for consideration during the BCAMP timeframe. P&I and AF/A7CF will review their submission and recommend a funding level for troop training projects for the FY.

12.1.5. Once an appropriation is received, the AFCEC CFO will allocate a portion of the quarterly authority to the sustainment, restoration and modernization program for project execution. Funds will be issued to MAJCOMs for troop training projects on a quarterly basis. Unlike the sustainment, restoration and modernization IPLs, troop training project funds will be issued in bulk, to facilitate materials acquisition that might facilitate cheaper unit costs. Quarterly authority may be required prior to project execution if the construction agent (CA) is USACE or NAVFAC.

12.1.6. Emergent projects or opportunities will be identified to the MAJCOM. The designated MAJCOM approving official will determine whether the project or opportunity will be submitted through the MAJCOM/CV to AF/A7C for consideration in the year of execution or held for routine MCAMP inclusion in the next IPL cycle review.

12.1.7. Emergency requirements may be executed locally, but will be submitted to the AFCEC for funding consideration depending on the nature of the project or opportunity.

12.1.8. Storm damage funding requirements must be brought in through the MAJCOM FM who will work with SAF/FMB, as done prior to establishment of the AFCEC. The AFCEC will not have funds set aside for storm damage.

12.1.9. The AFCEC will establish a sustainment, restoration and modernization withhold to support bid overages, emergent requirements and other budget requirements as approved by the AFCEC leadership.

12.1.10. The AFCEC CFO will establish a sustainment, restoration and modernization, withhold, and also use unawarded late executing sustainment, restoration and modernization projects or opportunities in order to support the following: bid overages, emergent requirements, and other unforeseen sustainment, restoration and modernization budget requirements.

12.2. FY13 sustainment, restoration and modernization financial program execution and project funding.

12.2.1. FY13 sustainment, restoration and modernization execution will operate within budget activity (BA) constraints. Air Staff has developed IPL with these constraints in place and the AFCEC will execute under these BA constraints.

12.2.2. Once the BCE receives ATA from the MAJCOM and bids are received, the base must request ATAwd from. MAJCOMs will request ATAwd from AFCEC/CF AFCEC/CF will contact AFCEC CFO for approval to release funds and AFCEC CFO will sub-allocate funding directly to the execution agent.

12.2.3. The AFCEC CFO will issue sustainment, restoration and modernization funds on a project by project basis. The amount of funds issued for a project or opportunity will equal the amount approved in the ATAwd. Bid savings will be withdrawn and managed centrally to support other projects or emergent requirements.

12.2.4. Distribution of funds from OAC 31 to installations.

12.3. Every installation has an operating budget account number (OBAN) set under OAC 31 beginning in FY13 for funds distribution.

12.4. AFCEC CFO funds control will issue the BA funding document using Automated Funds Management (AFM) system to the base financial management analysis (FMA) with copies to all stakeholders for their information and/or action. The installation must identify to the AFCEC CFO all points of contact (POC) that will be receiving/executing funds.

12.5. Non-Air Force execution agents will be issued funds via military interdepartmental purchase request (MIPR).

12.5.1. If a contract modification is required in the year of execution, the base or execution agent will request funds through the requiring MAJCOM. The requiring MAJCOM will contact the AFCEC/CF branch chief to coordinate and validate modification requests with MAJCOM representatives before a final decision on funding is made. It is envisioned that a change request form (CRF) similar to those currently being used for MILCON will be created for the sustainment, restoration and modernization program.

12.5.2. AFCEC/CF will consult with the MAJCOMs to validate and approve post award funding requirements, and request the AFCEC CFO to source and release funds from available bid savings, withhold, or unexecuted projects or opportunities.

12.6. Expired year adjustments will be generated in Obligation Adjustment Reporting System (OARS) by the base that executed the requirement, routed through applicable contracting officer (CO), and forwarded to the AFCEC CFO for approval and sourcing. If an external agency (outside Air Force) executes the project or opportunity then the AFCEC will generate the OARS.

12.6.1. The AFCEC CFO will monitor execution of funds and pull back unobligated funds.

12.7. AFCEC/CF, P&I, and AF/A7CF will evaluate FY13 execution and apply lessons learned and efficiencies to FY14. The standard operating procedures (SOP) and project or opportunity scoring models will be assessed as well to ensure they meet Air Force strategic goals and lessons learned from execution.

Appendix V Environmental Impact Analysis Process

APPENDIX V – ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS PROCESS (EIAP)

1.0 PREAMBLE

1.1. Since 2006, Program Budget Decision (PBD) 720, PAD 07-13, and other functional consolidation initiatives drove installation support functionals to reduce overhead and reinvest in warfighting and readiness needs. In July 2010, the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) directed each service to gain efficiencies and reduce operational costs.

1.2. An efficiency strategy identified was the consolidation of MAJCOM and FOA staff functions and consequent manpower reductions to deliver significant cost savings across the Air Force while maintaining effective installation support capabilities. The installation support centralization (ISC) concept of operations (CONOPs) and the ISC initiative proposed to reduce, eliminate, and/or consolidate specific functions from the MAJCOMs, FOAs, and HAF staffs. Installation-level support organizations were to remain in place and assigned to the current WG organization to execute the support mission.

1.3. Previously, PBD 720 and PAD 07-02 implemented consolidation of MILCON execution and environmental restoration account (ERA) activities at the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment (AFCEE). Building upon the success of previous program consolidations, PAD 12-03 continues CET by consolidating additional activities at AFCEC, specifically real property (RP) requirements, MAJCOM environmental quality (EQ) programs, MAJCOM EIAP environmental planning function (EPF), and program management functions and responsibilities.

1.4. As identified in PAD 12-03, MAJCOMs will transfer selected positions to support the centralization of EQ and EIAP programs at AFCEC. Regarding EIAP program centralization, the Air Force will establish the NEPA CoE (the NEPA Center) at AFCEC to support Air Force EIAP program management and EPF responsibilities to comply with

NEPA.

1.5. In sum, MAJCOMs will transfer 54 positions to AFCEC. Of these, 47 will be assigned to EQ positions and the remaining seven will be assigned to the EIAP program at the NEPA Center. Meanwhile, MAJCOMs will establish one or a partial FTE, civilian employee to serve as a MAJCOM EIAP coordinator. The MAJCOM EIAP coordinator will coordinate with the NEPA Center, MAJCOM staff, and proponents for EIAP requirements identification, mission advocacy, and initial validation of installation and MAJCOM EIAP requirements. The MAJCOM EIAP coordinator reports to the MAJCOM A7.

1.6. This P-Plan is the authoritative document for the Air Force EIAP centralization effort and establishment of the NEPA Center at AFCEC.

2.0 PURPOSE & SCOPE

2.1. The purpose of this section of the P-Plan is to define strategic approaches for centralizing the Air Force EIAP program in support of corporate Air Force NEPA compliance.

2.2. This section of the P-Plan provides the framework for the centralization of EIAP functions to AFCEC in conjunction with development of the Air Force EIAP program within the NEPA Center. Tables included in Appendix V (EIAP Program Centralization) identify goals, objectives, and metrics to drive successful implementation of this P-Plan and overall EIAP centralization efforts. For many of the goals and objectives outlined in the tables, corresponding metrics are intended to serve as starting points, which may be supplemented with new or additional metrics as the consolidation process evolves.

2.3. This section of the P-Plan applies to all MAJCOM EIAP programs within the United States and its territories, with the exception of the National Guard Bureau (NGB). NGB continues in its current roles, responsibilities, and funding for oversight and execution of EIAP. For single manager acquisition programs (system-related NEPA), roles and responsibilities will continue IAW 32 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 989.3(c)(3), except that:

2.3.1. Single managers will coordinate with the NEPA Center and MAJCOM EIAP coordinators for EIAP document review and tracking purposes, as necessary.

2.3.2. Upon their request, single managers will also coordinate with the NEPA Center for contracting and execution in support of acquisition…