AFCEC_Fairchild_PBR_Overview_Slides_23_Oct_13_Final.pdf

Air Force Civil Engineer Center I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

Kurt Lee

AFCEC/CZRY

23 October 2013

Air Force Performance Based

Remediation Overview

Overview

Air Force Restoration program was directed in FY11 to utilize the Performance Based Contracting methodology to accelerate clean up

To date, 27 Active Air Force PBRs worth $666.8M have been awarded

By the end of FY15, all CONUS Restoration programs will be covered under a PBR

Failure is not an option – we have to work together to ensure Milestones are met!

Working Together to Optimize Investment!

FY14 and FY15 PBRs

IRP and MMRP RC Planned vs. Actual

91 174

86 61 99 96 125

103 33

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14

N um be r o f S ite s

IRP Planned MMRP Planned IRP Actual IRP Anticipated MMRP Actual MMRP Anticipated

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e 5

Active Air Force ERP RC Goals

509 403

61.5%

84%

91%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Remaining Sites

Cu m ul at iv e

RC

S ite s

RC

S ite s b y

FY

RC Projection

Projected RC Cumulative Projected Total RC Target

90% 95%

491 Sites 323 Sites

Cumulative RC Progress for Combined IRP, MMRP and BD/DR

OSD Goal: Achieve 90% RC by 2018 and 95% by 2021

Total #Sites = 8143 (as of 20 June) 5

Program FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18

Total Program TOA $525.5 $529.2 $439.8 $413.4 $374.9 $381.2 $301.1

Total Program CTC ($M) $5,784.0 $5,214.0 $4,735.0 $4,310.2 $3,910.9 $3,590.0 $3,289.0

ERA Program Cost to Complete FY13-FY42

$0 $100,000,000 $200,000,000 $300,000,000 $400,000,000 $500,000,000

$600,000,000 EESOH MIS TOTAL REQUIREMENT BY YEAR - ABIDES 2013-

Oversight – the REAL Challenge!

FY FY+1 FY+2 FY+3 FY+4 FY+5 FY+6 FY+7 FY+8 FY+9 FY+10 FY+25 FY+30

Site 1 $2M $9M $9M $10M $2M $32M Site 2 $6M $9M $15M Site 3 $9M $10M $3M $2M $1M $1M $26M Site 4 $4M $9M $6M $5M $4M $1M $1M $30M Site 5 $10M $3M $3M $2M $18M Site 6 $3M $10M $3M $2M $.5M $.5M $19M Site 7 $2M $3M $5M Site 8 $2M $3M $5M Site 9 $2M $3M $3M $8M Site 10 $3M $4M $4M $11M Site 11 $2M $2M $2M $.5M $.5M $7M Site 12 $2M $9M $3M $3M $.5M $.5M $18M

TOA $34M $27M $29M $29M $20M $9M $6M $16M $10M $6M $M $4M $4M $193M

ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATION DECISION DOC CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS MONITORING

FY FY+1 FY+2 FY+3 FY+4 FY+5 FY+6 FY+7 FY+8 FY+9 FY+10 FY+25 FY+30

PBC 1 $34M $27M $29M $29M $20M $9M $6M $16M $10M $6M $M $4M $4M $193M

PBC 2 $10M $12M $35M $10M $5M $2M $7M $8M $2M $M $5M $2M $6M $104M

PBC 3 $15M $25M $114M $88M $64M $26M $19M $7M $8M $2M $1M $3M $7M $379M

PBC 4 $32M $15M $5M $7M $3M $6M $8M $M $3M $5M $6M $2M $7M $99M

PBC 5 $20M $5M $5M $11M $5M $4M $24M $2M $6M $8M $2M $1M $2M $95M

PBC 6 $25M $3M $12M $10M $8M $9M $2M $1M $M $1M $3M $1.M $1.M $76M

PBC 7 $15M $32M $8M $9M $9M $7M $6M $5M $5M $5M $4M $3M $2M $110M

PBC 8 $5M $20M $7M $3M $6M $8M $M $3M $5M $6M $2M $7M $1M $73M

TOA $163M $153M $232M $177M $131M $74M $72M $48M $41M $33M $23M $24M $31M $1202M

A N

Y A

FB

ERA PROGRAM

Pre –negotiated locked-in CLINS Out-year

$9M $10M $2M

$2M $3M $2M $3M $3M

$38M +$4M

$33M +$6M ‐$1M

$28M ‐$6M ‐$9M +$9M ‐$10M +$10M ‐$2M +$2M $23M $11M $18M $6M $20M $4M $2M

ANY $38M $33M $28M $23M $11M $18M $6M $20M $4M $2M

+$4M +$6M ‐$1M ‐$6M ‐$9M +$9M ‐$10M +$10M ‐$2M +$2M

Level to FYDP TOAs

PBR Surveillance – the REAL Challenge!

PBR Philosophy

Winning offeror should have the expertise to have submitted an executable proposal

Some risk is transferred to the offeror and should be considered as part of the proposal

AF will not be receptive to cost and/or schedule changes from reasonably anticipated contingencies

Proposed schedule end date will be incorporated into contract as period of performance (POP) end date for SubCLIN.

Common Proposal Issues

Date discrepancies between MPS, IMS, and Technical Approach

IMS does not include sufficient time for requirement such as regulator reviews (30 days minimum, +20 days as needed) and AF technical reviews (30 days minimum)

Because proposed end date becomes SubCLIN POP, might not be float in schedule to overcome – could lead to a deficiency

Plan B will not achieve Objective in proposed timeframe (i.e., SC in 2019, Plan B will be implemented in 2018; if Plan B includes 3QTRs of clean sampling SC will not be achieved in 2019.)

Typical Early Execution Issues

Program Management Plan (PMP) Document Review Process Not implementing “Plan B” soon enough to meet

MPO

Success!

Air Force wants successful PBRs Cost – Stay within the cost you propose Schedule – Meet all timelines in proposals Performance – Keep your eye on the goals and let’s get there together!

Working Together to Optimize Investment!