MIL STD 3007.pdf

NOT MEASUREMENT

SENSITIVE

MIL-STD-3007G

1 November 2019

SUPERSEDING

MIL-STD-3007F

13 December 2006

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

STANDARD PRACTICE

UNIFIED FACILITIES CRITERIA, FACILITIES CRITERIA

AND UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS

AMSC N/A AREA FACR

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE:

DISTRIBUTION IS UNLIMITED.

Source: http://assist.dla.mil -- Downloaded: 2019-11-21T17:38Z Check the source to verify that this is the current version before use.

ii

FOREWORD

1. This standard is approved for use by all departments and agencies of the Department of

Defense.

2. This standard establishes procedures for the development and maintenance of Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Facilities Criteria (FC), and Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS).

Use these procedures for the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance, sustainment, restoration, and modernization of facilities for all departments, Services, agencies, and activities of the Department of Defense.

3. Questions, comments, suggestions and recommended changes to this document can be submitted as follows:

Addressed to:

Commander, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Capital Improvements, Engineering Criteria and Programs Office (CI1) 6506 Hampton Blvd., Norfolk, VA 23508-1278

Electronically submitted utilizing the criteria change request (CCR) on the Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) website associated with the MIL-STD (htpps://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/federal-military-specifications-standards/mil-std-3007).

Since contact information can change, you may want to verify the currency of this address information using the ASSIST Online database at https://assist.dla.mil.

CONTENTS

PARAGRAPH PAGE

iii

1. Contents

FOREWORD ................................................................................................................................................ ii

I. Code Responsibilities and Authorities. 9 ......................................................................... viii

II. UFC or UFGS issuance actions. 14 ................................................................................. viii

1 SCOPE

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Applicability

1.3 Authority

1.4 Other criteria

2 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

2.1 General

2.2 Government documents

Specifications, standards, and handbooks

2.3 Order of precedence

3 DEFINITIONS

3.1 Approval authority

3.2 Archived or superseded criteria documents

3.3 Authority having jurisdiction (AHJ)

3.4 Building official

3.5 Construction criteria

3.6 Coordinating Panel (CP)

3.7 Core Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)

3.8 Core Unified Facilities Guide Specification (UFGS)

3.9 Criteria change

3.10 Criteria management system (CMS)

3.11 Criteria change request (CCR)

3.12 Criteria revision

3.13 Defense agencies and DoD field activities

3.14 Discipline working group (DWG) and functional working group (FWG)

3.15 Discipline working group (DWG) and functional working group (FWG) listing

3.16 Engineering Senior Executive Panel (ESEP)

3.17 Equivalencies

PARAGRAPH PAGE

iv

3.18 Exceptions

3.19 Exemption

3.20 Facilities Criteria (FC)

3.21 Facility sponsor

3.22 Inactive criteria documents

3.23 Participating organizations

3.24 Preparing activity (PA)

3.25 Project sponsor

3.26 Technical proponent

3.27 Technical representative (TR)

3.28 Tenant organization

3.29 UFGS master database

3.30 Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC)

3.31 Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS)

3.32 Waivers

4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Background

Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG)

Unification of Facilities Criteria

UFC, FC, and UFGS established

Engineering Senior Executive Board established

Coordinating Panel (CP) established

Discipline Working Groups (DWG) established

SpecsIntact

NASA designated as UFGS participating organization

Return on investment (ROI)

4.2 Approach

Establishing UFC, FC, and UFGS criteria

4.3 Programming and scheduling

Program list

Program coordination

Program management

4.4 Criteria development

Unification and non-Government standards

PARAGRAPH PAGE

v

Criteria development considerations

Criteria development, revisions, and change approvals

Approvals for initiating new FC

4.5 Metric system

Requirements for use in UFC and UFGS

Requirements for use in design and construction

4.6 Format standards

4.7 Criteria availability

5 DETAILED REQUIREMENTS

5.1 Management procedures for UFC and FC

Purpose

Issuance

Approval

Designation of UFC

Designation of UFC on the same subjects

Designation of FC

Draft UFC or FC review

Draft UFC or FC comment period

Final UFC or FC submittal

Concurrence by regulatory or functional authorities

ESEP approval

Publication

Records maintenance

UFC and FC validation

Feedback

5.2 Waivers and exemptions

Definitions

Approval process

5.3 Concurrence by regulatory or functional authorities

5.4 Management procedures for Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS)

Purpose

Issuance

Approval

Designation of UFGS

PARAGRAPH PAGE

vi

Designation of UFGS on the same subjects

Designation of other UFGS

Preparing activity (PA) assignments

UFGS master databases

UFGS system master

UFGS master index

Draft UFGS review

Draft UFGS comment period

Final UFGS submittal

DWG or FWG approval

Publication

Reporting

Revisions and changes

Automated updating of reference publications

5.5 Criteria change requests (CCR)

CCR resolution

Level of effort and funding

Response to reviewers

6 NOTES

6.1 Intended use

6.2 Subject term (key word) listing

6.3 Change notations

A.1 SCOPE

A.1.1 Scope

A.2 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

A.2.1 General

A.2.2 Government documents

A.2.2.1 Specifications, standards, and handbooks

A.2.2.2 Other Government documents, drawings, and publications

A.2.3 Order of precedence

A.3 PROCEDURE

A.3.1 Military Department project sponsors

PARAGRAPH PAGE

vii

A.3.2 Defense-wide organization project

A.3.2.1 Defense agency or activity as tenant organization

A.3.2.2 Defense agency or activity on installation permitted by a Military Department

A.3.2.3 Pentagon reservation

A.3.3 Special situations

A.3.4 Concurrence by regulatory or functional authorities

A.3.4.1 Overseas locations

A.3.4.2 Army standard designs

A.3.4.3 Air Force standard designs

A.3.4.4 Explosives safety

A.3.4.5 Airfield criteria

A.3.4.6 Accessibility

A.3.4.7 Lodging facilities

A.3.4.8 Navy and Marine Corps Unaccompanied Housing

A.3.5 Coordination

A.3.5.1 Waivers and exemptions

A.3.6 Submission

A.3.6.1 Army

A.3.6.2 Navy and Marine Corps

A.3.6.3 Air Force

A.3.7 Documentation

A.3.7.1 Description

A.3.7.2 Valid time period

A.3.7.3 Waiver and exemption documentation

A.3.7.4 Waiver and exemption records

CONCLUDING MATERIAL

viii

FIGURE PAGE

1. Criteria triangle

2. Criteria considerations

3. Criteria development, revision and change process

TABLE PAGE

I. Code Responsibilities and Authorities

II. UFC or UFGS issuance actions

1 SCOPE

1.1 Purpose. This standard establishes policy for developing and maintaining Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), Facilities Criteria (FC), and Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) as common facility standards and engineering practices for the Department of Defense (DoD) and other supported agencies.

1.2 Applicability. UFC, FC, and UFGS provide facility planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance, sustainment, restoration, and modernization criteria for facilities owned by the DoD.

1.3 Authority. This standard implements the UFC program as a component of the Defense Standardization Program and is established by House Conference Report 105-247 (9 September 1997);

Tri-Service Unified Design Guidance Report to the congressional defense committees (March 1998);

Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (DUSD) letter (29 May 2002); DoD Directive (DoDD) 4270.5, Military Construction (https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/427005p.pdf); and DoD Instruction (DoDI) 4120.24, Defense Standardization Program (DSP) (https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodi/412024p.pdf). The Military Departments jointly develop individual UFC, FC, and UFGS pursuant to their authorities under Title 10, United States Code, and therefore represent DoD consensus standards.

1.4 Other criteria. Where there are no UFC, FC, or UFGS, other criteria may still be in effect and will be used until superseded or incorporated into UFC, FC, or UFGS. Inactive UFC or FC documents can be used to identify requirements but will be verified and determined to be applicable prior to use.

2 APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS

2.1 General. The documents listed in this section are specified in sections 3, 4, or 5 of this standard. This section does not include documents cited in other sections of this standard or recommended for additional information or as examples. While every effort has been made to ensure the completeness of this list, document users are cautioned that they must meet all specified requirements of documents cited in sections 3, 4, or 5 of this standard, whether or not they are listed.

2.2 Government documents.

Specifications, standards, and handbooks. The following specifications, standards, and handbooks form a part of this document to the extent specified herein. Unless otherwise specified, the issues of these documents are those cited in the solicitation or contract.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE STANDARDS

UFC 1-200-01 - DoD Building Code (General Building Requirements) UFC 1-300-01 - Criteria Format Standard UFC 1-300-02 - Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS) Format Standard

(Copies of these documents are available online at https://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod/unified-facilities-criteria-ufc.)

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET

OMB Circular A-119 - Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, dated 10 February 1998.

(Copies of these documents are available online at https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Circular-119-1.pdf.)

PUBLIC LAW

Public Law 94-168 - To declare a national policy of coordinating the increasing use of the metric system in the United States, and to establish a United States Metric Board to coordinate the voluntary conversion to the metric system.

Public Law 104-113 - National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Section 12(d), dated 7 March 1996

(Copies of these documents are available online at https://uscode.house.gov/.)

2.3 Order of precedence. Unless otherwise noted herein or in the contract, in the event of a conflict between the text of this document and the references cited herein, the text of this document takes precedence. Nothing in this document, however, supersedes applicable laws and regulations unless a specific exemption has been obtained.

3 DEFINITIONS

3.1 Approval authority. The Engineering Senior Executive Panel (ESEP) is the approval authority for UFC, FC, and UFGS documents. The approval authority was established as part of the House Conference Report 105-247, dated 9 September 1997, accompanying Conference Committee on House Report (H.R.) 2016, Military Construction Appropriations Act, 1998, that directed DoD and the Services to establish procedures for unification of facilities criteria. The ESEP exercises approval authority as represented on the signature page of each UFC and FC document. The ESEP has delegated approval authority for UFGS documents to discipline working groups (DWG) and functional working groups (FWG). Approval authority for UFC and FC includes authority to waive or exempt published requirements that lie within the authority of the approval authority to establish. Criteria requirements mandated by law are not to be waived or exempted.

3.2 Archived or superseded criteria documents. UFC, FC, or UFGS are designated as an archived or superseded criteria document if a newer version of the UFC, FC, or UFGS has been developed, requirements have been incorporated into other documents, requirements are available in non- Government standards, or requirements have become obsolete. Archived and superseded criteria are no longer active documents or required criteria. Archived or superseded criteria documents are retained for historical records and are available on the WBDG in archived status or may be available via retained Construction Criteria Base (CCB) standards.

3.3 Authority having jurisdiction (AHJ). The designated authority or duly authorized representative charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of the UFC, FC, and UFGS—the criteria documents. The AHJ renders interpretations of the criteria and clarifies the application of its provisions. Such interpretations and clarifications are in compliance with the intent and purpose of the criteria. Such interpretations and clarifications must not have the effect of waiving or exempting requirements specifically provided for in the criteria. The terms “building official” and “authority having jurisdiction” used in the criteria, reference codes, and standards are synonymous.

3.4 Building official. The designated authority or duly authorized representative charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of the UFC, FC, and UFGS—the criteria documents. The building official renders interpretations of the criteria and clarifies the application of its provisions. Such interpretations and clarifications are in compliance with the intent and purpose of the criteria. Such interpretations and clarifications must not have the effect of waiving or exempting requirements specifically provided for in the criteria. The terms “building official” and “authority having jurisdiction” used in the criteria, reference codes, and standards are synonymous.

3.5 Construction criteria. Construction criteria typically refers to UFGS documents.

3.6 Coordinating Panel (CP). A four-member panel composed of a senior representative of each Military Department and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) responsible for day-to-day administration and management of the UFC program under the direction of the ESEP. The CP establishes policy and procedures to execute unified facilities policy as established by the ESEP; formulates and recommends UFC program requirements to the ESEP for approval; provides coordination and oversight of the tri-Service DWGs and FWGs; and arbitrates technical and procedural differences impeding the development of unified criteria. CP representatives serve within the same organization or functional reporting chain as their respective ESEP member. The CP is composed of the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Sustainment; Air Force Civil Engineer Center, Chief, Technical Services Division, Facilities Engineering Directorate; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chief, Military Engineering and Construction Technical Branch; and Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Engineering Criteria and Programs Office.

3.7 Core Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). Core UFC documents identified in the Criteria Management System (CMS) consist of those UFC that address general building requirements, high-performance mandates, and discipline-specific systems found in most buildings. The core UFC address building code compliance, life safety, legislation compliance, and performance. The core UFC provide requirements for the majority of traditional building systems prevalent on DoD facility construction projects.

3.8 Core Unified Facilities Guide Specification (UFGS). UFGS addressing general building requirements. UFGS frequently used and directly correlated to a core UFC. UFGS that are frequently used but specialized (tied to mission, such as runways, or specialized components or systems) are considered ‘specialty’ UFGS.

3.9 Criteria change. Changes to UFC, FC, or UFGS can occur when less than 40 percent of the document pages require update, inclusive of previous changes to the document. Criteria changes are intended to facilitate quick changes to the documents and keep them current between criteria revision cycles.

3.10 Criteria management system (CMS). Web enabled computer application supporting the Tri-Service criteria programmatic and project management efforts. The application is hosted by the National Institute of Building Sciences. The CMS application provides support for: the management of UFC, FC & UFGS documents and projects associated with developing, revising or changes to the documents; tracking document revisions and change history; enabling document reviewing and commenting functionality; managing and addressing CCRs; enabling criteria workload requests for each fiscal year (FY); allowing archiving and storing document source files; tracking DWG and FWG membership listing and technical representatives; and an electronic approval and signature process associated with documents. Numerous reports and metrics associated with the criteria program can be obtained from CMS. Access to CMS is limited to authorized personnel and requires registration to access the application.

3.11 Criteria change request (CCR). A criteria change request, commonly referred to as a CCR, is a requested change or revision to the criteria. CCRs may be provided by anyone, such as but not limited to industry, private entities, or DoD personnel. CCRs are submitted electronically via links provided on the WBDG and automatically routed for adjudication to the appropriate criteria managers within DWGs or FWGs.

3.12 Criteria revision. Revisions to UFC, FC, or UFGS occur when 40 percent or more of the document pages require update, inclusive of previous changes to the document.

3.13 Defense agencies and DoD field activities. DoD agencies and field activities are those entities under oversight and management of the OSD but not part of the Military Departments of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

3.14 Discipline working group (DWG) and functional working group (FWG). Lead representative from each Military Department responsible for the unification and maintenance of criteria documents. Each DWG or FWG is represented by one (1) member from each Military Department. The Office of the Secretary of Defense may also designate a DWG or FWG member. The establishment of DWGs align with the traditional disciplines of architecture and engineering. The establishment of FWGs align with functional or operational areas to address facility criteria requirements. DWGs and FWGs synchronize criteria development efforts within various technical areas to eliminate redundant criteria and duplication of effort. DWGs and FWGs facilitate the development, coordination, review, approval, and maintenance of UFC, FC, and UFGS. DWGs and FWGs may be collectively referred to as DWGs. Other Defense Agencies may participate on DWGs as associate members.

3.15 Discipline working group (DWG) and functional working group (FWG) listing.

Discipline and functional working groups are established or eliminated dependent on current or projected criteria program management needs. The CP recommends establishment or elimination of DWGs or FWGs to the ESEP for concurrence and approval. Currently approved working groups are as listed.

DISCIPLINE FUNCTIONAL

Architecture Aviation Civil Construction Cost Engineering Comprehensive Planning Electrical Contingency Engineering Fire Protection Facility Space Planning Geotechnical Fuels Mechanical Medical Pavements Renewable Energy Generation Structural Security Specifications Sustainability Utility Control Waterfront

3.16 Engineering Senior Executive Panel (ESEP). A four-member panel composed of a Senior Executive Service (SES) representative from each Military Department and the OSD responsible for directing and resourcing the UFC program consistent with statutory requirements and DoD policy. The ESEP establishes UFC program policy and priorities; approves UFC documents for publication; provides and defends funding and staff for the UFC program; resolves issues referred by the CP that may impede the unification process; and approves requests (individually for their Service) for waivers and exemptions to criteria. ESEP members are appointed by appropriate authority within each Military Department and the OSD. The ESEP is composed of representatives from the Office of the Secretary of Defense for Sustainment; Deputy Director of Civil Engineers, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Engineering and Force Protection, Headquarters U.S. Air Force; U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Chief, Engineering and Construction; and Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Chief Engineer.

3.17 Equivalencies. Alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment that do not lessen quality, strength, effectiveness, fire resistance, durability, and safety. In these instances, formal exemptions are not required. Note that alternative materials, design and methods of construction and equipment must not be misconstrued as a waiver or exemption.

3.18 Exceptions. A special situation where an alternative is permitted or something is excluded from a criteria requirement. Exceptions are defined in UFC, FC, or UFGS. They do not require a waiver or exemption but can require approval from an entity such as the building official or AHJ.

Example:

“Stages greater than 1,000 square feet in area (93 m2) will be equipped with a Class III wet standpipe system with 1-1/2-inch and 2-1/2-inch (38 mm and 64 mm) hose connections on each side of the stage.”

“Exception: Where the building or area is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system, a 1-1/2- inch (38 mm) hose connection will be installed in accordance with NFPA 13 or in accordance with NFPA 14 for Class II or III standpipes.”

3.19 Exemption. An indefinitely approved release from a UFC or FC requirement. Exemption request and approval process are addressed in Appendix A.

3.20 Facilities Criteria (FC). FC define functional requirements for specific types of facilities within a Service. Such as, child development centers, barracks, or dining facilities. Requirements are established by the Service regulatory or functional authority rather than the technical community of architects and engineers. FC are non-unified criteria and address a Service’s unique requirements.

3.21 Facility sponsor. The DoD component with a requirement for a facility or associated facility project and the responsibility to provide all funding necessary to undertake and complete the project. May also be referred to as the “project sponsor.”

3.22 Inactive criteria documents. UFC, FC, or UFGS are designated as an inactive criteria document if they have not been revised or changed to maintain requirements as current and applicable.

Inactive UFC and UFGS are the result of insufficient program requirements (facility projects) requiring their use, resulting in a low return on investment (ROI) or need to maintain. Inactive criteria documents are not mandatory criteria. They are available on the WBDG and can still contain useful information;

however, not all requirements/technologies may be current and should be validated on a project-by-project basis to determine mandatory requirements.

3.23 Participating organizations. The participating organizations are defined as the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC), and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC). Criteria document development is a joint effort of these organizations.

These organizations are referred to as participating organizations. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is considered a participating organization for the UFGS through a memorandum of understanding (MOU).

3.24 Preparing activity (PA). Lead Service assigned responsibility for the management of the criteria document. The PA can designate another Service or technical proponent to revise or change the criteria documents or portions of the criteria documents by coordinating with and designating a project technical proponent from another participating organization or technical agency.

3.25 Project sponsor. The DoD component with a requirement for a facility or associated facility project and the responsibility to provide all funding necessary to undertake and complete such projects. May also be referred to as the “facility sponsor.”

3.26 Technical proponent. A representative from a participating organization responsible for developing or coordinating the project-level effort to update a criteria document. The technical proponent can be a DWG or FWG member or other member of a participating organization or technical agency.

3.27 Technical representative (TR). Technical working-level representative from another participating organization for a particular document assigned to assist the technical proponent in the DoD component review, unification, and maintenance of a criteria document.

3.28 Tenant organization. An entity belonging to a DoD Component (Military Department or Defense organization) occupying land or facilities on an installation managed by a different DoD Component. Tenant organizations do not include non-federal public or private entities operating under a lease, easement, or license granted by the DoD component.

3.29 UFGS master database. The UFGS database is composed of the UFGS available on the

WBDG.

3.30 Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC). A document that provides DoD facility design requirements. The UFC and FC format standards are addressed in UFC 1-300-01.

3.31 Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS). A document that provides DoD construction requirements. UFGS are edited by the designer of record for use on each project. The UFGS format standard is addressed in UFC 1-300-02.

3.32 Waivers. Provides authority to deviate from a UFC or FC requirement for no more than twelve months or for a length of time as designated by the approval authority. Treat waivers considered for an indefinite period of time as exemptions and follow the exemption approval process. The waiver request and approval process are addressed in Appendix A.

4 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

4.1 Background.

Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG). In 1989, DoD adopted the Construction Criteria Base (CCB) information system as the official distribution method for facilities criteria. OSD and the DoD Services have been instrumental in the advancement of the CCB and have overseen its evolution into the WBDG. The WBDG provides web-based access to current facilities criteria documents for use by DoD Services, agencies, and field activities, as well as contractors performing work for DoD. Archived, superseded, and inactive criteria documents are also available via the WBDG website.

Unification of Facilities Criteria. Language on unified design guidance in House Conference Report 105-247, dated 9 September 1997, accompanying Conference Committee on House Report (H.R.) 2016, Military Construction Appropriations Act of 1998, directed DoD and the Services to establish procedures for unification of facilities criteria. The three Military Departments, under the auspices of the OSD, established a working group to address unification issues. The working group surveyed existing procedures, criteria, and guide specifications, evaluated the extent of criteria uniformity, identified areas where greater uniformity was practical, analyzed options for management of a uniform guidance system, and submitted a framework to the congressional defense committees in response to the House direction. This document implements that framework.

UFC, FC, and UFGS established. The UFC, FC, and UFGS systems were designed to standardize and streamline the process for developing, maintaining, and disseminating criteria as a result of the Military Construction Appropriations Act of 1998. The working group concluded that the use of DWGs is the most efficient method of achieving criteria uniformity. This approach maintains specialized expertise in each Service and enhances the ability to provide rapid responses to technical and programmatic issues.

Engineering Senior Executive Board established. The Engineering Senior Executive Board, now referred to as the ESEP, was established in 1998 by the DoD Installations Policy Board to implement the UFC and UFGS systems for DoD. The MOU on Unified Design Guidance (Unified Facilities Criteria) establishing the ESEP (initially referred to as the Tri-Service Engineering Senior Executive Board) can be reviewed at https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/udg_mou.pdf.

Coordinating Panel (CP) established. The CP was established in 1998. The CP is sponsored by the ESEP. The charter establishing the CP (initially referred to as the Tri-Service Design Guidance Coordinating Panel) can be viewed at https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/tsdgcp_charter.pdf.

Discipline Working Groups (DWG) established. The DWGs were established in 2003 in support of the UFC program in compliance with the charter for the CP. The charter guiding the DWG can be viewed at https://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/dwg_charter.pdf.

SpecsIntact. SpecsIntact is an automated specification processing system developed in partnership between NASA, NAVFAC, and USACE for producing and maintaining master guide specifications and developing project specifications from master documents. Use SpecsIntact as the word processing software to edit the UFGS database. SpecsIntact can be downloaded from htpps://specsintact.ksc.nasa.gov. NASA, NAVFAC, and USACE entered into an MOU agreeing to use SpecsIntact. This SpecsIntact MOU designates NAVFAC and USACE as member agencies in the joint funding, maintenance, enhancement, and usage of the SpecsIntact system. This MOU is available on the WBDG at htpps://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/specsintact_mou_091614.pdf.

NASA designated as UFGS participating organization. Subsequent to the SpecsIntact MOU for joint development, maintenance, and usage of SpecsIntact, the members identified the advantages of developing common specifications. NASA, NAVFAC, USACE, and AFCEC entered into a UFGS MOU, agreeing to jointly fund, maintain, use, unify, and support the UFGS. This MOU designates NASA as a participating organization with equal representation on the UFGS working group. This MOU is available on the WBDG at htpps://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/ufgs_moa.pdf.

Return on investment (ROI). Criteria documents are developed to provide enforceable standards while providing a positive ROI. A criteria cost-benefit analysis report prepared by NAVFAC in December 2004 showed significant ROI for UFC and UFGS documents. ROI for UFC, FC, and UFGS documents are attributable to:

a. Requirements: Reduced effort to define facility requirements associated with DD Form 1391, requests for proposals (RFP), and contract documents (design drawings and specifications)

b. Studies: Remove the need for project studies to develop unique DoD requirements

c. Technical evaluation: Reduce effort to resolve criteria conflicts used by different contractors in proposals

d. Design/redesign: Reduce design costs and minimize redesign and additional design effort

e. Construction: Material and labor savings through the use of more economical and efficient materials and systems (adoption of proven technologies)

f. Reduce construction change orders, request for information, and rework

g. Commissioning cost savings

h. Construction litigation: Reduce Government liability

i. Operations savings: Reduce functional and system inefficiencies

j. Maintenance savings: Reduce recurring maintenance

k. Maintenance costs: Reduce need to replace systems or fund operations and maintenance efforts

l. Safety: Reduce safety-related costs

m. Disposal: Reduce facility disposition and hazardous cleanup costs

Criteria Management System (CMS). CMS became available in December 2010 as a web-based project management system to facilitate criteria program coordination. The application was initially targeted for managing new, revised, and changes to UFC, FC, and UFGS documents and increasing project visibility. The system continues to be enhanced and provides a repository for source document files for ongoing and future management efforts associated with the criteria documents and other program functions.

Defense Standardization Program (DSP). DoD established the DSP program to promote standardization of materiel, facilities, and engineering practices to improve military operational readiness and reduce total ownership costs and acquisition cycle time. DoD policy is to state requirements in performance terms wherever practical and make maximum use of non-Government standards and commercial technologies, products, and practices. Key DSP documents are available at https://www.dsp.dla.mil/Policy-Guidance/. MIL-STD-3007 follows the requirements of the DSP program and establishes procedures for the development and maintenance of UFC, FC, and UFGS.

Non-Government standards (NGS). Nationally and internationally recognized technical, professional, and industry associations and societies prepare standards that may have potential application in DoD. DoD Services and agencies are required to use NGS and participate in their development to meet agency needs and objectives when consistent with the agency’s mission, priorities, and budget resources.

Facilities Criteria (FC). The need for FC documents was established in October 2012 by the ESEP. Multiple Services having a majority of similar but some unique facility requirements shall utilize the UFC criteria format standard but address Service-specific requirements via Service-specific chapters or placed within the body of the document for minor service unique requirements. The goal is to minimize the number of FC criteria documents and strive for UFC documents—unified requirements or a large percentage of overall unified requirements.

UFC, FC and UFGS Authorities. UFC, FC and UFGS are issued under the authority of the ESEP. Their enforcement of their provisions as they pertain to facility projects can be delegated to the local Component Office’s Chief Engineer’s Technical Representative. The Component Office’s Chief Engineer’s local Technical Representatives are considered the “Building Official” or “Authority Having Jurisdiction” (AHJ). Their authorities are addressed herein as well as in UFC 1-200-01. Table I shows the alignment of code responsibilities and authorities with various entities as they are addressed in the MIL- STD, UFC 1-200-01 and predominant industry standard building codes (ICC IBC and NFPA 1).

TABLE I. Code Responsibilities and Authorities.

4.2 Approach. Implementation, management, and execution of the UFC, FC, and UFGS criteria programs rely on the use and adoption of non-Government standards to the maximum extent practicable. The ESEP responsibilities are identified in paragraph 3.16. The ESEP provides oversight of the CP, DWGs, and FWGs and members act individually as the approval authority for waivers and exemptions to criteria under their purview. The CP, chartered by the ESEP, works directly with DWGs and FWGs established to facilitate unification. The DWGs and FWGs are composed of technical personnel who develop unified criteria and guide specifications.

Establishing UFC, FC, and UFGS criteria. Criteria documents are developed to establish, implement, and provide enforceable standards. Criteria documents will adopt non-Government standards when they meet DoD requirements. They are developed using the coordinated, collective technical resources of all the Services. Criteria documents are developed in compliance with and implement the applicable requirements contained in Public Laws (P.L.), Executive Orders (E.O.), Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), DoDI, DoDD, or other higher authority documents, as applicable. Criteria documents also address facility requirements in support of mission or operational needs and establish minimum performance standards to address the total lifecycle requirements associated with facilities.

4.3 Programming and scheduling. Multiple factors, as identified in paragraph 4.4.2, and available funding are the determining parameters establishing which existing and new criteria documents are updated or developed. Funding of criteria document projects is subject to the procedures and priorities within each participating organization. Each participating organization must budget and obligate funds for new documents and general maintenance of the UFC, FC, and UFGS for which they are responsible.

These funds cover changes of a minor and unplanned nature in response to comments typically received through the CCR process.

Program list. Every fiscal year, each DWG and FWG identifies in CMS the criteria documents that need to be developed (new documents), revised, changed, or consolidated. Criteria document requirements, including an estimated cost of each item, shall be prioritized and submitted to the CP for use in preparing an annual composite unified criteria program planned for implementation. CMS shall be utilized to prioritize and submit the DWG or FWG list to the CP. When two or more organizations identify and provide funding for updating or developing a UFC, FC, or UFGS, a technical proponent shall be assigned by the CP to manage the funding and project effort.

Program coordination. The CP is responsible for coordinating and consolidating DWG and FWG requirements and develops the integrated priority list of criteria documents included in the annual unified criteria program. Selection shall be based on DWG and FWG recommendations, DoD program priorities, fiscal year defense plan priorities, priorities of each participating organization, and available resources. The integrated priority list shall be provided to the ESEP for concurrence.

Program management. The CMS is the official computer application that enables program management and coordination. It must be utilized and sustained to facilitate critical program functions, including:

a. Repository of criteria source documents

b. Criteria program list planning

c. Project visibility and management for criteria development, changes, and revisions

d. Criteria reviews and comment resolution

e. Program execution and reporting

f. Project/document approval

g. CCR feedback and management

h. DWG and FWG membership

4.4 Criteria development.

Unification and non-Government standards. Development of criteria documents is a joint effort of USACE, NAVFAC, and AFCEC. These organizations are referred to as participating organizations. NASA is considered a participating organization for the UFGS through an MOU. Other DoD organizations participate as regulatory or functional authorities and their criteria requirements are addressed through the participating organizations. All planning, design, construction, operations, and maintenance criteria for facilities shall be unified to the extent practicable. The unification process maximizes use of non-Government standards in accordance with Public Law 104-113, National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Section 12(d), dated 7 March 1996, and Office of Management and Budget Circular A-119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities, dated 10 February 1998. Figure 1 represents the reliance on non-Government standards (industry standards) as the base of the UFC, FC, and

UFGS program. Furthermore, the tiers represent the overlay of criteria requirements that leverage common standards and avoid duplication.

FIGURE 1. Criteria triangle.

Criteria development considerations. Developing, revising, or changing criteria must account for various considerations to implement effective requirements. Technical requirements, proven or mature technologies, and Service or operator requirements must be defined so they can be utilized by various users and meet permissible Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) and Defense Federal Acquisition Regulations (DFAR) requirements. Figure 2 depicts the various considerations that influence criteria requirements.

FIGURE 2. Criteria considerations.

Criteria development, revisions, and change approvals. The CP, working with recommendations and inputs from the DWGs and FWGs, manages and recommends the need for new criteria documents and criteria revisions to the ESEP via the yearly program coordination and program list. Following concurrence by the ESEP that criteria should be developed or revised, and based on available resources and funding, the appropriate DWG or FWG shall be assigned to accomplish the task.

Factors such as the availability of non-Government and industry technical standards must be considered when determining the need to develop, revise, or change criteria. The process for UFC and FC criteria management is shown in Figure 3. The UFGS process is similar, with the exception that no final review and approval by the CP and ESEP is required for UFGS.

FIGURE 3. Criteria development, revision, and change process.

Approvals for initiating new FC. Before any new FC is approved for development, the FC requirement must be vetted through the DWG or FWG and reviewed by the CP with documented concurrence for development. This will ensure the FC is appropriate as a Service-unique requirement versus a possible unification with other Services having a similar requirement.

4.5 Metric system. Public Law 94-168 designates the International System (SI) of measurement (metric system) as the preferred system of weights and measures for United States trade and commerce. Executive Order 12770, Metric Use in Federal Government Programs, requires the use of the metric system in Federal acquisitions except when such use is "impracticable or is likely to cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United States firms."

Requirements for use in UFC and UFGS. UFC 1-300-01 addresses the use of SI units in criteria documents and UFC 1-300-02 addresses the use of SI units in guide specifications.

Requirements for use in design and construction. Generally, design and construction of new or renovated facilities should consider the use of the SI system of measurement unless such use leads to inefficiencies or would be otherwise impractical. Increased initial cost or lifecycle cost is an indicator of inefficiencies. The design agent/project manager is responsible for determining whether to use SI units on a project-by-project basis. Customer preferences or limited designer experience are not adequate justifications on their own for eliminating metric use, but are valid considerations as part of the decision process. Decisions not to use SI units must be justifiable and documented in the permanent project files.

Where RFPs or similar alternatives to the design-bid-build process are used, the RFP can be issued in dual units (inch-pound and SI) with the requirement that each proposal indicate the system of units to be used by the contractor throughout. For any type of project for any Service, do not use dual units on the drawings.

4.6 Format standards. Criteria are developed, including revisions and changes, in accordance with UFC 1-300-01. Guide specifications are developed and revised in accordance with UFC 1-300-02.

The most current UFC standard as referenced here is used upon initiation of the development or revision effort. Changes to criteria documents may retain older versions of the UFC standard.

4.7 Criteria availability. The ESEP signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the National Institute of Building Sciences (NIBS) to assist in the development and distribution of criteria documents. This agreement is available on the WBDG website at the following link htpps://www.wbdg.org/FFC/DOD/wbdg_moa.pdf. All UFC, FC, and UFGS are available on the WBDG website at htpps://www.wbdg.org/ffc/dod.

5 DETAILED REQUIREMENTS

5.1 Management procedures for UFC and FC.

Purpose. UFC and FC are developed by individual DWGs or FWGs and approved by the ESEP. UFC and FC contain technical requirements, technical guidance, introduce new and innovative technology, or provide mandatory requirements to implement laws, regulations, executive orders, and policies prescribed by higher authority documents. UFC and FC also define performance and quality requirements for facilities to support their mission throughout their lifecycle. UFC and FC provide the most current operationally effective, cost-efficient, and safe criteria at the time of publication.

Issuance. UFC and FC are issued under the authority of the ESEP and are effective upon issuance. UFC and FC shall be reviewed periodically, revised or changed, and made available as part of the Departments’ responsibility to provide criteria for military facilities. UFC 1-300-01 addresses revisions and changes to UFC and FC documents. UFC 1-200-01, DoD Building Code (General Building Requirements), addresses how changes and revisions are addressed for ongoing facility projects. UFC are effective upon issuance for ongoing projects as follows:

a. Design-bid-build projects that have not proceeded beyond 35 percent design completion.

b. Design-build projects that have not proceeded beyond date of RFP issuance. When an RFP is issued in multiple phases or steps use the date of the last phase of the RFP issuance.

c. Projects that have a delay, either planned or unintentional, of more than 18 months between design completion and the solicitation of offers for construction must be re-evaluated to determine if any design revision is necessary due to changes in criteria (including codes and standards) or site infrastructure (such as water supply for fire department vehicle access). NOTE: The evaluation must also include retroactive requirements included in new editions of the criteria.

Approval. When a UFC or FC is created, revised, or changed, it shall be scheduled and coordinated electronically among the participating organizations identified in paragraph 3.23. A description of each type of issuance is provided in Table I. It is the responsibility of the PA and the DWG or FWG to produce UFC or FC within the funds provided, meet established schedules, obtain consensus agreement of the participants, and produce technically adequate documents. For disagreements that cannot be resolved within the DWG or FWG, the matter is submitted for resolution to the CP first and to the ESEP only when necessary. UFC may specify Service–unique requirements if necessary. The DWG or FWG, while not mandatory, should consider sending drafts for review and comment to industry associations or technical and professional societies if they provide a representative cross-section of criteria audience users. Once a new, revised, or changed UFC or FC document is developed and appropriately coordinated, the PA forwards the document via the CMS electronic signature approval process. (Under Project Review Sessions, select New Session, create “CP/ESEP Approval Session,” and select QC/DWG Coordination Form.) Changes only require DWG or FWG approvals while newly created documents and revisions are routed to the DWG or FWG, CP, and ESEP for approval. The review session for newly created documents and revisions electronically initiates the QC/DWG coordination form and tracks necessary sequential approvals of the DWG or FWG, CP, and ESEP members. Upon approval, the PA forwards an electronic document file to the appropriate criteria manager for distribution of the UFC as indicated in paragraph 4.7.

Type of Issuance

UFC or UFGS Description

CLERICAL • Nontechnical

• Administrative

• No change to technical aspects

• Example: Fix typos or format

CHANGE • Less than 40% of pages are changed (40% cumulative including previous changes)

• Limited number of technical issues

• Example: Approved CCR technical changes

REVISION • 40% or more of pages have new info or cumulative changes

• Complete review and refresh

NEW • New document

• Information not duplicated in existing documents

TABLE II. UFC or UFGS issuance actions.

Designation of UFC. Where criteria are unified among the participating organizations on a particular subject or where criteria have been combined into a single document, those criteria are identified by the file name only (such as UFC 1-300-01) when approved by all participating organizations in accordance with paragraph 5.1.3.

Designation of UFC on the same subjects. Criteria on the same subjects that are not yet combined have an alpha designation after the UFC file name: “N” for Navy, “A” for Army, and “F” for Air Force (such as UFC 1-300-05A) or a combination thereof for two Services. These alpha designators facilitate management of criteria within the participating organizations and provide identification within the WBDG and the Internet. The alpha designator does not mean the documents are not UFC.

Designation of FC. Criteria specific to a Service’s functional requirement and to a single Service requirement are identified as FC and have an alpha designation after the FC file name: “N” for Navy, “A” for Army, and “F” for Air Force (such as FC 4-420-07F) or combination thereof for two Services. These alpha designators facilitate management of criteria within the participating organizations and provide identification within the WBDG and the Internet.

Draft UFC or FC review. After drafting a new, revised, or changed UFC or FC, the PA’s technical representative provides an electronic version of the draft document (35 percent review, pre-final) to the technical proponents and technical representatives of all participating organizations for review and comment. Likewise, provide electronically the final review and coordination for back-check of prior comment resolution and associated edits made to the final document. CMS must be utilized to facilitate the review effort through posting of documents for review, commenting, and comment resolution. At the discretion of the DWG, FWG, or PA, additional project submittal reviews (outline/concept review or interim reviews) can be included as part of the overall review effort. A complete list of all UFC and FC with the associated PA is available on the UFCs tab in CMS.

Draft UFC or FC comment period. The technical representative and technical proponent from each participating organization shall coordinate their review and provide a single set of comments in CMS within four weeks of receipt of the draft UFC.

Final UFC or FC submittal. The PA’s technical representative adjudicates all comments and incorporates as appropriate into the UFC or FC. Any questions or disagreements are discussed directly with the technical proponent who forwarded the comment and resolved.