PWS Attachment 3 - FY26-30 AFCAMP Business Rules.pdf

Page | 1

FY26-30 AFCAMP BUSINESS RULES

1. FY26-30 AFCAMP Overview (Integrated Tasking Order)

1.1. Summary of Major Changes for FY26-30

1.2. Integrated Tasking Order

1.3. Governance

2. AFCAMP Methodology & Timeline

2.1. AFCAMP Methodology

2.2. Timelines

Figure 2-1. FY26-30 AFCAMP Timeline

Table 2-1. FY26-30 CTO/PTO/USSFTO Development Milestones

Table 2-2. FY26-30 AFCAMP MFHTO Development Milestones

3. Centralized FSRM Funds: Planning & Construction Tasking Orders

3.1. Funding Eligibility

3.2. Enterprise Priority Allotments

3.3. Prioritization

3.4. Planning Tasking Order (PTO)

3.5. Large Projects

3.6. AFCEC Project Execution: AFCEC/CFS Design Agent/Construction Agent (DA/CA) Services

3.7. Cost Growth Governance – Offsets and CAPs

4. Other Tasking Orders & Programs

4.1. Military Family Housing Tasking Order (MFHTO)

4.2. Environmental Tasking Order (ETO)

4.3. US Space Force Tasking Order (USSFTO)

4.4. FY25 Emergent Requirement Requests (ERR)

4.5. Re-Insertion Request (RIR)

4.6. Relocatable Facilities (RLF)

5. Appendices

A.1. Acronyms

A.2. Points of Contact

A.3. Asset Management and Program Guidance

A.4. Requirements Development and Planning Action Process

A.5. NexGen IT Data Entry and Management Requirements

A.6. AFCAMP Validation Document Preparation Guidance

A.7. Typical Project Flow Chart (>$5M Requirement)

A.8. Steps to cFSRM Charrette Funds

A.9. Recommended Timing for RLFs for CTO Projects

Page | 2

1. FY26-30 AFCAMP Overview (Integrated Tasking Order)

1.1. Summary of Major Changes for FY26-30.

The AFCAMP Business Rules to support the build of the ITO have been thoroughly reviewed for the FY26-30 cycle. The changes listed below have been approved through the AFCAMP governance.

1.1.1. Revised Chapters: It is recommended to review the entire document in its entirety as minor to major changes have occurred throughout the AFCAMP Business Rules. NexGen IT data entry standards for submittal are consolidated into Appendix 5 and validation requirements and detailed validation document requirements are consolidated into Appendix 6.

1.1.2. AFCAMP Milestones and Timelines: The FY26-30 AFCAMP continues implementation of the FY24-28 AFCAMP Continuous Process Improvement (CPI) Initiative in which project scoring for CTO and PTO projects were eliminated, and projects will continue to be primarily prioritized by Major Command (MAJCOM) priority points (Chapter 2 and para.3.3.); the exception are Focus Funded CTO projects. The AFCAMP milestones similarly will continue to reflect the new processes implemented in the FY25-29 AFCAMP, with slight adjustments to timelines to ensure adequate data input, prioritization, and requirement development can occur. See Table 2-1 for major milestones and Figure 2-1 for the overall AFCAMP Timeline.

1.1.3. Enterprise Priority Allotments. Also known as “Business Cases”, Enterprise Priority Allotments (para 3.2.)

have had minor revisions by their respective programs.

1.1.4. Unspecified Minor Construction (UMC) Threshold Increases: Per FY24 NDAA, the UMC threshold as specified in 10 USC §2805 has been increased to $4,000,000. The FY26-30 AFCAMP threshold used for UMC validation has been adjusted in correlation with this increase. As a result, validation documents previously required for UMC > $1.8M are now only required for UMC > $3.6M. Corresponding threshold requirements for HHQ Approval Authority have not been redelegated currently. See HHQ Project Authorization Tool for more details.

1.1.5. Large Projects: Large Projects (PA >$50M) will be prioritized through the Military Construction (MILCON) Working Group governance for increased strategic investment oversight. Para.3.5. introduces the methodology in which the Infrastructure Council will support prioritization efforts and decision making in large project investment and budgetary allocation.

1.1.6. Comprehensive Planning Platform (CPP): Several items were removed or clarified in the document submittal lists (Appendix.4.).

1.1.7. Project Offsets for Cost-Growth: Within the constrained fiscal environment, measures must be taken to balance available funding against inflation and project cost growth (para.3.7.).

1.1.8. Enterprise Focus Fund Prioritization: Focus Funded projects will be prioritized by the respective enterprise AMP manager and will solicit MAJCOM feedback before presenting Focus Fund IPLs for governance approval.

Offsets will not be MAJCOM specific and will be applied within the specific Focus Fund portfolio.

1.1.9. US Space Force Tasking Order: USSF installations should refer to para.4.3. for applicability of various sections of the AFCAMP Business Rules.

1.2. Integrated Tasking Order

1.2.1. Overview: The Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP) is the process used for requirements prioritization & budgeting to govern allocation of centralized funds. The allocation selects which projects will be included in those respective FY budgets. The overview section under each of these tasking orders lists the types of projects and fund types (PECs and EEICs) which are eligible. Eligible projects will be considered for inclusion in the AFCAMP IPL for the various Tasking Orders. The term ITO represents the collective combination of the following tasking orders:

Page | 3

1.2.1.1. Centralized Facility Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (FSRM)

1.2.1.1.1. Planning Tasking Order (PTO)

1.2.1.1.2. Construction Tasking Order (CTO)

1.2.1.2. Environmental Quality Tasking Order (EQTO)

1.2.1.3. Military Family Housing Tasking Order (MFHTO)

1.2.1.4. US Space Force Tasking Order (USSFTO)

1.2.2. IPL & ITO Development: An asset management approach as described in AFI 32-1001, Chapter 4 will be used to scope and develop requirements by minimizing life cycle costs to Air Force Real Property. The resultant product from the AFCAMP process is the ITO. The IPL is a prioritized one-to-N list for each task order. The approved ITO applies a funding limit to each IPL to grant authority-to-advertise for those projects above the limit.

1.2.3. Business Rules: The AFCAMP process uses these business rules to integrate directives, ensure standardization, clarity, and transparency of the process for all stakeholders. This includes the mandate that all requirements be properly captured in the system database of record and how that will be used to produce the various IPLs.

Supplemental appendices have been created to provide associated information to assist in document preparation.

1.2.4. Applicable Authorities: The AFCAMP is a budgeting process. Inclusion in a Tasking Order signifies that a project has been included in a particular FY budget. It does NOT provide the required project authorization as specified by law in 10 USC 2805 and 10 USC 2811 and as further described in and delegated under DAFI 32-1020.

Contact AFCEC/CFPO for further guidance on the project authorization process.

1.2.5. Single, 5 Year, Rolling IPL: Installations should program all requirements seeking centralized funding in FY26 through FY30 and ensure they are correctly entered in the applicable system of record (NexGen IT). FY26 programmed requirements will be prioritized for funding and execution in FY26. Each tasking order within the AFCAMP will produce a single prioritized list of all valid requirements. The IPL will span five years to enable planning, design, and contracting actions for projects, seamless execution of end of year funds, and a smooth transition from each fiscal year. FY26 PTO and projects submitted for FY26 design will be selected based on projections to make the CTO for execution in future years.

1.2.6. Timing: To meet enterprise funding execution goals, all FY26 programmed requirements should be able to have funds obligated by 30 Jun 2026. Projects not able to obligate before that deadline, should be programmed for a later FY.

1.3. Governance

1.3.1. Process: AFCAMP governance is comprised of the ITO Working Groups, AFCAMP Boards, and AFCAMP Council shown below in Fig.1-1.

1.3.2. Output: The timelines of when governance will meet are estimated in Table 2-1. Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) will publish the ITO in the form of a quadripartite memorandum, signed by the respective authorities in AFCEC, Air Force Installation Contracting Center (AFICC), Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC), and United States Space Force (USSF). Attachments to the ITO provide the list of projects to be included in the respective FY26 budgets and provides authority to advertise with some limitations.

Page | 4

Figure 1-1. AFCAMP Governance Structure 1

Page | 5

2. AFCAMP Methodology & Timeline 3

2.1. AFCAMP Methodology 4

IAW AFPD 32-10 and AFI 32-1001, the AFCAMP employs a systematic, sustainable strategy to asset management for all 5 aspects of installations and infrastructure (both natural and built). 6

2.1.1. Process Overview 7

2.1.1.1. Installations will prioritize a list of projects to their MAJCOMs. Installations will input their list of 8 projects into NexGen IT and clear all data flags supported by AFCEC/CFPI. AFCEC/CFPI will pull and 9 provide each MAJCOM’s list of projects from NexGen IT for the MAJCOMs to prioritize. 10

2.1.1.2. MAJCOMs will consolidate installation input and provide AFCEC/CFPI with a MAJCOM prioritized 11 list (MCAMP). AFCEC/CFPI will merge MAJCOM priorities to develop a single IPL and present to 12 AFCAMP governance. AFCAMP governance will apply projected funding cut lines and approve a pre-final 13 ITO. AFCEC/CFPI will publish the pre-final ITO IPL which will list the projects expected above the cut line 14 in FY26. 15

2.1.1.3. AFCEC/CFPI will request validation documents for above the cut line projects, plus a certain 16 percentage below the cut line, to ensure enough projects are eligible for funds commitment after validation. 17 Installations will submit the documents required by Appendix 6 for validation by the required deadline in 18 Table 2-1. 19

2.1.1.4. The AFCAMP validation process, as supported by the Vector Check Process in the CPP, will ensure: 20

1) a project’s requirements are accurately defined, 2) the cost estimate is reliable for budgeting, 3) 21 requirements adhere to policy, and 4) asset management principles have been applied. 22

2.1.1.5. Projects not submitted by AFCAMP deadlines or not meeting validation criteria will remain in the 5-23 year IPL if the requirement is both needed and eligible for AFCAMP funding. However, these projects will be 24 deferred to the next FY unless justified by the respective MAJCOM. 25

2.1.1.6. After validation, governance will re-convene to develop the final IPL to be published in the final 26 Integrated Tasking Order. 27

2.1.2. Mission Impact. Projects should contribute to MAJCOM mission and strategic guidance. The AFCAMP 28 governance structure will prioritize projects based on Headquarters Air Force (HAF) strategic guidance and mission 29 impact. 30

2.1.3. Asset Management in Project Identification and Development. Key to this effort is considering multiple 31 Courses of Action (COAs) or scope alternatives to determine the most appropriate solution to meeting the 32 requirement. This may involve differing scope, timing, and execution methods to achieve the desired objective. In 33 most cases, the lowest life cycle cost for an asset will drive the recommended COA. However, in some cases a COA 34 may be selected based on critical mission needs, or upon what the enterprise can afford at the time. When a 35 requirement is complex and/or near an exceedance of threshold, it is important to conduct a thorough documented 36 review of the alternatives to ensure the scope (including swing space requirements) is sufficiently developed to 37 support good decision-making and continuous improvement among multiple COAs prior to defining the final project 38 scope. 39

2.1.4. Requirements Development: The Requirements Development Process starts with the installation Work 40 Request Review Board (WRRB) when approved for accomplishment by contract. It documents the development of 41 requirements all the way to the design contract award. The Requirements Development Process consists of three 42 separate processes: Planning Development, Scope Development, and Charrette Development. Planning and Scoping 43 Development are accomplished on the CPP for projects above thresholds described in Appendix 6. 44

2.1.5. Requirements Definition. Project requirements must be clearly defined to support the scope and cost of the 45 project before submitting to the AFCAMP. COAs must be sufficiently analyzed and cost estimating will meet the 46 Cost Estimating Improvement Program (CEIP) criteria. 47

Page | 6

2.1.6. Asset Management in Validation: Asset condition, utilization, analysis of alternatives, lowest life cycle cost, 48 engineering analyses, and savings projections, will be initially examined during the Planning and Scoping 49 Development phases using vector checks. Additional review is conducted in AFCAMP Validation for CTO and 50 USSFTO requirements. See Appendix 4 for the CPP planning action process and Appendix 6 for AFCAMP 51 documentation guidance. 52

2.1.7. Funding Execution Responsibilities: Following Quadripartite issuance, installations will submit funding 53 requests to the following organizations for processing: 54

2.1.7.1. USAF CTO: AFCEC/CFTS manages CTO funding distribution (afcec.srm@us.af.mil). 55

2.1.7.2. USAF PTO: AFCEC/CFTR manages PTO funding distribution (afcec.cftr.workflow@us.af.mil). 56

2.1.7.3. USSFTO: USSF installations will submit funding requests to AFIMSC Detachment 1 57 (AFIMSCDet1.DETAFSPC.Workflow.1@us.af.mil). 58

Page | 7

2.2. Timelines 60

Figure 2-1. FY26-30 AFCAMP Timeline 61

Note: Governance dates are subject to change. Figure displays typical timeframe in which Governance occurs. 63

Page | 8

Table 2-1. FY26-30 CTO/PTO/USSFTO Development Milestones

(Excludes MFHTO timelines, see Table 2-2 below)

Mid Apr 2024 AFCEC Release Final FY26-30 Business Rules April-May AFCEC/CFPI FY26 AFCAMP Webinars

April – mid-Jul Installations Enter NexGen IT data; prioritize projects; conduct Facilities Boards

April – mid-Sept MAJCOMs w/ Installations

Advocacy to MAJCOMs / Prioritization

31 May Installations

Deadline: For applicable projects requesting FY26 funding, submit for Vector Checks (VC) on Comprehensive Planning Platform (CPP). (Planning VC for PTO, Scope VC for DSN & EXE) Note: If SVC submittal is due by this date, installations must submit for PVC well in advance (several months) of this date.

Jun – mid-Jul AFCEC/CFPI NexGen IT Data Pulls; IPL Build

26 Jul AFCEC/CFPI Final IPL Pull: Facilities Board priorities due in NexGen IT. Send list of potential Troop Training Projects (TTPs) to AFIMSC/Det 4 and AFCEC/CXXE for consideration

31 Aug Enterprise w/ Installations

Deadline: – For applicable projects requesting FY26 funding, complete CPP vector checks; projects without enterprise concurrence will NOT be eligible for FY26 funding and automatically deferred to FY27

27 Sep MAJCOMs MAJCOM Priorities Due. No changes to priorities or inserts except through ERR process

Oct AFCEC/CFPI Develop draft IPLs for Governance

Mid-Oct AFCEC/CFP AFCEC Board #1: Review preliminary funding levels and initial review of draft IPL to determine validation requirements

8 Nov AFCEC/CFPI Publish Pre-Final CTO/UPL. Release validation requirements lists; installations submit project documents for all projects on the Pre-Final IPL and as directed for UPL projects

Jan AFCEC/CFP AFCEC Board #2: Supplemental review of draft IPLs to determine enterprise priorities

3 Jan 2025 Installations Deadline: Submit AFCAMP Validation documents. Incomplete submissions will NOT be eligible for FY26 funding and automatically deferred to FY27

7 Feb AFCEC/ALL Deadline: Validators complete initial project reviews and provide feedback

21 Feb Installations Deadline: Submit revised documents to address all validator comments

1 Mar AFCEC/ALL Deadline: Resolve validation comments. All projects not resolved will be deferred to FY27 or removed from IPL

Mar AFCEC/CFP

AFCEC Board #3: Provide IPL updates based on most recent funding projections, project cost estimate revisions and results of validation; review and approve Enterprise Priority Allotments;

preliminary approval of FY26-30 Business Rules for release.

Early-Apr AFCEC/CFP AFCEC Board #4: Address issues to finalize the FY26-30 PTO, CTO, USSFTO, EQ, MFH, and UMMC IPLs and reach concurrence

Mid-Apr AFCEC/CC AFCAMP Council: Approve FY26-30 IPLs and FY26 ITO; Sign and Issue Quadripartite Memo; Publish FY27-31 Business Rules

Page | 9

Table 2-2. FY26-30 AFCAMP MFHTO Development Milestones

Mid Apr 2024 AFCEC Release FY26-30 Business Rules May-Jun AFCEC/CIMH FY26 AFCAMP Webinars 15 May AFCEC/CIMH Begin IPL Pulls – open season

15 May – 1 Oct Installations Enter NexGen IT basic data; prioritize projects; conduct Facilities Board

15 Oct AFCEC/CIMH Final IPL Pull: End of Open Season. Facilities Board priorities due in NexGen IT; projects added after this date must be requested by a MAJCOM/Det

1 Nov AFCEC/CIMH Send draft IPL/validated project lists to MAJCOMS/Dets for input/prioritization

15 Nov AFCEC/ALL Finalize IPL/validated project list

23 Dec Installations Deadline: End Open Season – submit AFCAMP MFH documents HARD DATE! Incomplete submissions will NOT be eligible for FY26 funding and automatically deferred to FY27

31 Jan 2025 AFCEC/ALL Deadline: Validators complete initial project reviews & feedback

21 Feb Installations Deadline: Submit revised documents to address all validator comments

26 Feb MAJCOM/Det MAJCOM/Det priorities due to AFCEC

28 Feb AFCEC/ALL Deadline: Resolve validation comments. All projects not resolved will be deferred to FY27 or removed from IPL

Early-Apr AFCEC/CFP AFCEC Board #4: Address issues to finalize the FY26-30 PTO, CTO, USSFTO, EQ, MFH, and UMMC IPLs and reach concurrence

Mid-Apr AFCEC/CC AFCAMP Council: Approve FY26-30 IPLs and FY26 ITO; Sign and Issue Quadripartite Memo; Publish FY27-31 Business Rules

Page | 10

3. Centralized FSRM Funds: Planning & Construction Tasking Orders

3.1. Funding Eligibility

3.1.1. Eligible fund types for PTO and CTO: The fund source is AFIMSC Centralized FSRM funding within Organizational Activity Code (OAC) 18. Projects must have the following predominant Program Element Codes (PEC) and Element of Expense Investment Codes (EEIC). This program does not fund projects which are predominantly EEIC 521xx (Sustainment Maintenance). Projects may be funded in part with other ‘third-party’ fund sources.

Table 3-1. FSRM Fund Types

PEC

Legacy

EEIC

Object Code (NexGen IT)

Description xxx78 524xx 320.16xx Sustainment Repair xxx76 522xx 320.15xx Restoration & Modernization Repair

(Most Restoration Repair as result of a fire or natural disaster should be paid by Storm Damage funding, requested through AFIMSC/RM) xxx76 529xx 320.13xx Unspecified Minor Construction (UMC) xxx76 or xxx78

532xx 320.21xx Design xxx93 536xx 320.22xx Standalone Demolition

3.1.2. Relocatable Facilities (RLF): Starting with the FY25-29 cycle, as non-real property items, RLFs may be funded by the AFCAMP, provided the RLF is used as swing space associated with an AFCAMP project and AFCAMP funding is allowable per DAFI 32-1020, Chapter 8. These costs must be identified and included as part of the total project cost when submitted to the AFCAMP. Capture Allied Support requirements for RLFs on programming documents. Per DAFMAN 65-605v1, para.10.17, Allied Support is classified as construction, which must be funded as a construction project according to the statutory cost limits. Allied support minor construction projects may be submitted to the AFCAMP.

3.1.3. AFCAMP Floor: Minimum submittal, ‘floor’, threshold values and exceptions to these amounts are provided in DAFI32-1020, para.2.12. The current thresholds as of the latest publication (29 Sept 2022) are $2.0M for Sustainment Repair (EEIC 320.16xx) and $1.0M for Restoration and Modernization Repair (EEIC 320.21xx). There is no floor for Minor Construction (EEIC 320.13xx); projects of any amount may be submitted. Threshold exceedance is based on the predominant EEIC and the total cost of the project. For phased umbrella projects, the floor amounts apply to each child project individually.

3.1.3.1. Exceptions: Exceptions are listed in DAFI 32-1020, para.2.12.4, which allows projects of any value to be submitted for centralized funding if they meet any of the exception criteria listed. Projects meeting floor exemption criteria must be properly identified in NexGen IT; see Appendix 5.2.7.for further guidance.

3.1.4. AF and non-AF Tenant Requirements at AF Owned Installations. Host installation Civil Engineer (CE) squadrons will coordinate with tenant units to ensure requirements are identified and programmed in accordance with the AFCAMP Business rules and the appropriate validation documents are prepared. Specific Host-Tenant Agreements or Joint Service Agreements specify funding and tasking responsibilities of all parties at each installation and must be consulted. Typically, tenant units are responsible to fund modernization and minor construction requirements unique to its mission at the facilities it occupies. Other requirements, including sustainment, are typically funded by the host installation. After review of these documents, if eligible for AFCAMP funding, see para.

3.3.2.5 for further information on advocacy and prioritization.

Page | 11

3.1.5. Requirements on Non-AF Owned Installations. The policy guidance below is generic to where the Air Force is the supported service on a non-AF Joint Base.

3.1.5.1. AFCAMP funding limitations: AFCAMP funding at Joint Bases is limited to projects or portions of projects which require Air Force funding as described in the DoD Facilities Investment Supplemental Guidance for Operating at a Joint Base (23 Jul 2020).

3.1.5.2. Specific installation host-tenant agreements, Memorandums of Agreement (MOA) or Joint Base supplemental guidance must be consulted to clarify responsibilities of the supported and supporting Components of the installation led by other services or other departments as they may supersede these relationships.

3.1.5.3. Typical Funding Responsibilities: Generally, the Department of Defense (DoD) guidance document states the host service will fund Sustainment and Restoration of all existing facilities and modernization of all ‘Installation Support’ and ‘Supporting Mission’ facilities at their Joint Base. The supporting and supported Components shall specifically identify and document all the installation support facilities and common infrastructure in the Joint Base MOA. For Modernization and Minor Construction, at ‘Mission Supported’ (tenant) facilities, the Service Component generating the requirement is responsible for funding.

3.1.5.4. AFCAMP Support: The parent Wing of the tenant, requiring MAJCOM must ensure requirements are identified and are properly programmed, and required validation documents are prepared / submitted if eligible for AFCAMP funding. This may involve SMS assessment of the existing condition of the facility and an instance of the project in the NexGen IT database of record. For tenant units smaller than the Wing level, this should be accomplished by the parent Wing or installation designated to support the tenant. The requiring MAJCOM is responsible for prioritizing and advocating for those requirements.

3.1.6. Basing Actions (Beddowns). This includes projects in support of an AF Strategic Basing Action as defined in DAFI 10-503, Strategic Basing, para 1.5 and 1.6. Basing Actions are generally eligible for AFCAMP funding;

however, exceptions which are not eligible are as noted below.

3.1.6.1. Exceptions: Acquisition New Mission (AQ-NM) projects support the beddown purchase of new weapons systems. These requirements are identified in the applicable acquisition’s Program of Record/Service Cost Position (POR/SCP) and reported in a Selected Acquisition Report (SAR) to Congress annually. As of FY24, projects in support of Acquisition New Mission will be included in the POR/SCP and NOT be eligible for AFCAMP funding. Contact AFIMSC/RMP for further guidance.

3.1.6.2. Responsibilities: CTO program funding should not be used if mission owner funding becomes available at a later point in time. Responsibility for programming requirements will remain at the installation where the work will be performed.

3.1.7. Footprint Growth Offset Policy.

3.1.7.1. Requirement. All building (RPA Type B) square footage growth, whether due to MILCON, UMMC, UMC, acquisition of existing buildings on DAF land (i.e., transfer from another service, transferred in lieu of demolition), gifts of construction, or conversion to APF (NAF, private funding, family housing), must be offset with an equivalent reduction in square footage.

3.1.7.2. Process. Projects that require a growth offset will be identified during project validation. The MAJCOM/USSF advocating for the project will be asked to indicate their support for the use of credit in their respective Growth Offset Bank accounts to offset the expected growth in these projects.

3.1.7.3. Timing. The square foot offset for the identified projects will be deducted from the Growth Offset Bank when the project is included in the CTO.

Page | 12

3.2. Enterprise Priority Allotments

3.2.1. Introduction: Some project types within the CTO are scored and prioritized differently. These projects will compete with similar projects within their individual enterprise priority allotment. Funding amounts to be allotted to each enterprise priority will be determined by AFCAMP governance each year. Below are the enterprise priority allotments and prioritization method for each:

Design: Provides design funding for projects predicted to be funded for execution in FY27 or FY28 CTO to ensure these projects are ready to execute in the projected year of funding. Prioritization will be based on the FY of when the project is projected to be above the line for execution funding and relative position within that FY

IPL.

Third Party Funded (3PF) projects (para.3.2.2): Projects are prioritized and individually selected using Professional Military Judgement during governance.

Energy (NRG) Savings Projects (para 3.2.3): Projects are prioritized according to Savings to Investment Ratio

(SIR).

Troop Training Projects (RED HORSE & CTS) (para 3.2.4): Projects are prioritized according to training value and other factors by AFCEC/CXX.

Demo & Consolidation/Demo (CNSLD-DEMO) (para 3.2.5): Projects are prioritized according to a cost per square foot basis, adjusted for Area Cost Factor (ACF).

Environmental Quality – FSRM Projects with EQ Driver (para 3.2.6): Projects are scored and prioritized based on environmental risk-based factors.

Note: Although the Planning Tasking Order (PTO) (para 3.4) is a separate Tasking Order, the fund source is the same.

Thus, the PTO is treated as an enterprise priority during governance to determine the amount of funding to be allotted.

3.2.2. Third Party Funded (3PF) Projects

3.2.2.1. Overview

3.2.2.1.1. The enterprise priority for Third Party Funded projects is an effort to capture business decisions that will save Air Force FSRM funds. This chapter does NOT apply to savings projects meeting energy conservation requirements which represent 35% or more of the total life-cycle cost savings. See Para.3.2.3, AFCAMP Energy Savings Projects, for further guidance. All rules for 3PF project approval apply.

3.2.2.1.2. Eligibility. At a minimum, projects eligible to compete in the third-party enterprise priority must receive a minimum 50% of the total project cost paid for by the third party.

3.2.2.2. Definitions

3.2.2.2.1. Third Party Funds. Third Party Funds refers to funds being provided from a source other than the Air Force FSRM program. Projects utilizing third party funds must demonstrate a specific USAF benefit or meet an USAF obligation to be considered. Any funds from external sources can be considered as an additional benefit to cost of the FSRM requirement.

3.2.2.2.2. Third Party Fund Sources: Includes projects funded in part by non-USAF entities, such as another DoD service or agency such as Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), National Security Agency (NSA), Army-Air Force Exchange Service (AAFES), Defense Commissary Agency (DECA), another federal agency, a state or local agency, host nation, or private sources. Projects funded in part by Depot or Transportation Working Capital Funds (DWCF or TWCF) are also eligible.

3.2.2.2.3. Applicable Costs for Joint Basing: A minimum of 50% of the total cost of the project must be paid by the third party to qualify for this enterprise priority allotment. However, for the SIR formula below, the Third-Party Investment amount will include only the portion of the project which would normally be funded from USAF FSRM funding. Any funding that is required to be paid for by the 3rd party (other service) based on programming rules, host-tenant, or other support agreements, will not be

Page | 13 included in the Third Party Funded amount when calculating the SIR value. Contributions above that may be included. Refer to para.3.1.6 for further guidance on Joint Base funding requirements.

3.2.2.2.4. USAF FSRM Funded Amount: The amount of USAF FSRM centralized funding requested is the amount to be entered as the Programmed Amount (PA) in NexGen IT. This amount does not include Third Party Funds.

3.2.2.3. Prioritization

3.2.2.3.1. Initial Prioritization: MAJCOMs will prioritize these projects. Projects will first compete on their MAJCOM priority point values as described in para.3.3.

3.2.2.3.2. Identification of Projects: Projects below the CTO budget cut line may be nominated by a MAJCOM to move above the budget cut line, subject to further consideration by AFCAMP governance.

3.2.2.3.3. Governance: Nominated projects will be considered and selected during governance based on a project’s individual merits such as:

Risk to portfolio

SIR (see formula below).

Overall benefit to the AF regarding amount of FSRM funds invested.

Relationships with the 3rd party & political considerations.

Strategic mission importance.

MAJCOM priority.

3.2.2.3.4. Advocacy Slides: As required in A.6.3.9., will be used by governance to weigh and score.

3.2.2.3.5. Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR): Calculate the SIR ratio using the equation below:

SIR =

3𝑟𝑑 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡

𝐴𝐹 𝐹𝑆𝑅𝑀 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡

3.2.2.3.6. See Appendix 5.2.1. for NexGen IT database entry requirements.

3.2.3. Energy (NRG) Savings Projects

3.2.3.1. Overview: Energy Savings Projects must have an SIR >1 and a minimum 35% of the estimated life cycle financial savings directly attributed to energy (or water) conservation. Non-energy savings claimed in support of project economics must be “hard” savings (i.e., actual money saved, not diversion of resources to other tasks).

3.2.3.2. Project Preparation:

3.2.3.2.1. SIR must be calculated using the latest version of Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC) software.

3.2.3.2.2. Create an energy opportunity in NexGen IT, in accordance with the programming data management guides and Appendix A.5.2.1.. & A.5.2.7.1.. Enter the SIR and the AFCAMP Floor Exemption. Energy Managers should coordinate with Programmers to ensure accurate project data entry.

3.2.3.2.3. For validation, submit: Draft DD1391, Energy Savings Calculations, and BLCC.

3.2.3.3. DD Form 1391 Details:

3.2.3.3.1. Project costs must reflect the total estimated construction and design costs (including Supervision, Inspection, & Overhead (SIOH) and in-country fees for OCONUS bases).

3.2.3.3.2. Ensure “Project Description” clearly explains what is being accomplished, including specific building numbers. List all assets/improvements to be made which are included in the energy savings calculations.

3.2.3.3.3. Include BLCC information in the ADDITIONAL section to include the Measurement and Verification (M&V) method chosen per Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) M&V guidelines.

Page | 14

3.2.3.4. Energy Savings Calculations:

3.2.3.4.1. Provide a spreadsheet showing all formulas, all data and all assumptions made to calculate energy savings. Validators will review all steps taken to calculate energy savings.

3.2.3.4.2. Energy Savings calculations must include current and proposed consumption information along with assumptions and calculation methodologies.

3.2.3.4.3. Non-Energy Savings must be hard savings (tangible) to the AF. Reduced maintenance/repair man-hours are not savings as those hours are diverted to other CE priorities.

3.2.3.4.4. BLCC Software: Complete a BLCC estimate for the project using the latest version of the software, which is updated annually by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The IT approval letter required to install on government computers is located on the Energy Direct Investments page on CE-Dash with instructions on how to use the software.

3.2.3.4.5. BLCC Details - Data Entry

3.2.3.4.5.1. Economic Life: Refer to list of economic life for various energy project technologies in the Table 3.2 below.

3.2.3.4.5.2. Utility Rate: Use latest Annual Energy Performance, Resilience, and Readiness Report (APMRR) rate, or if alternate rate is utilized provide reasoning in energy savings calculation documentation.

3.2.3.4.5.3. Utility Annual MBTU Savings: Values must correspond with energy savings calculations documentation.

3.2.3.4.5.4. Non-Energy Savings: Values must correspond with energy savings calculations documentation.

3.2.3.4.5.5. Design/Construction Cost: Values must correspond with the DD Form 1391.

3.2.3.4.6. Claiming future cost avoidance as part of a project’s estimated savings is usually not allowed.

Exceptions will be made where there is clear justification that the avoided cost claimed will result in actual future savings to the Air Force.

3.2.3.4.7. Equipment salvage value is not allowed as part of estimated savings.

3.2.3.4.8. Validation for a FSRM energy project will remain in effect for 24 months from the date the BLCC is prepared. Beyond this 24-month window, the project DD Form 1391, BLCC, and supporting documentation need to be updated and revalidated by AFCEC. Appropriate changes also need to be made in NexGen IT.

3.2.3.5. Constraints/Section Specific Guidance

3.2.3.5.1. NRG Project Validation. AFCEC Energy Program Execution Division (AFCEC/CNE) will review and validate for inclusion.

3.2.3.5.1.1. Energy savings projects will be coordinated with other AFCAMP IPL validators as appropriate.

3.2.3.5.1.2. New system installations may require additional validation documentation. (e.g., CE OPS assurance that sustainment will be conducted on the new system or Sustainment Management System (SMS) BUILDER data to assure a roof condition is sufficient to support a solar heating system).

3.2.3.5.2. Design-Only Funding. Bases should seek design funding the FY prior to execution for complex or large projects. See Appendix 5.2.2. for NexGen IT data entry. Projects showing the best potential energy savings will receive higher priority in design fund requests. Projects using a design/build approach may request seed funding the FY prior to execution.

3.2.3.6. Supplemental Guidance

Page | 15

3.2.3.6.1. Economic Life Table. The table below contains recommended economic life duration for various types of energy and water conservation projects. These values are used for the economic life input in the BLCC. The table is extracted from the latest DoD ERCIP Program Guidance.

3.2.3.6.2. Additional Economic Life/Savings - Values not included in Table 3-2

3.2.3.6.2.1. Re/Retro-Commissioning = 5-year economic life, 12% savings.

3.2.3.6.2.2. EMCS: New System = 12% savings (Installation must have latest COINE infrastructure).

3.2.3.6.2.3. ECMS: System Upgrade = 5% savings (Installation must have latest COINE infrastructure).

3.2.3.6.3. Renewable Energy that uses a Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) – Battery life of 10 years must be calculated.

Table 3-2. Economic Life for BLCC Project

Category Technology

Economic Life

Description

Energy Efficiency

(EE)

EMCS or HVAC Controls 15 years Projects that centrally control energy systems with the ability to adjust temperature, shed electrical loads, control motor speeds, or adjust lighting intensities.

EE Steam and Condensate Systems 20 years Projects to install condensate lines, cross-connect lines, distribution system loops, repair or install insulation, and repair or install steam flow meters and controls.

EE

Boiler Plant Modifications 20 years Projects that upgrade or replace central boilers or ancillary equipment to improve overall plant efficiency. This includes fuel switching or dual fuel conversions.

EE

Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning 20 years Projects to install more efficient heating, cooling, ventilation, or domestic hot water heating equipment. This includes the HVAC distribution system (duct s, pipes, etc.).

EE Weatherization 15 years Projects that improve the thermal envelope of a building. This includes building insulation (wall, roof, foundation, doors), windows, vestibules, earth berms, shading, etc.

EE Lighting Systems 15 years Projects to install replacement lighting systems and controls. This would include new fixtures, lamps, ballast s, photocells, motion sensors, light wells, highly reflective painting, etc.

EE

Energy Recovery Systems 20 years Projects to install heat exchangers, energy wheels, heat reclaim units or other systems to recapture energy lost to the environment.

EE

Electrical Energy Systems 25 years Projects that increase the energy efficiency of an electrical device or system or reduce the cost by reducing peak demand.

EE Daylighting 25 years Projects that optimize natural light for internal lighting.

Water Conservation

(WC)

Potable Water Conservation 20 years Projects that involve devices or processes to reduce potable water loss, waste or use most of these are in the ground, but liners will be less in ponds but under normal maintenance.

WC

Non-Potable Water Conservation 25 years

Projects that involve the re-use, recycling, and eventual reduction of non-potable water such as wastewater and irrigation run-off most of these are in the ground, but pumps etc., are under normal maintenance.

Renewable Energy (RE)

Geothermal 40 years Projects that generate electrical power or process thermal energy using a high temperature geothermal source.

RE

Ground Source Heat P ump 40 years Projects to install a central heating and/or cooling system to store and retrieve heat from the ground. 40 years for in-ground systems, 15 years for controls.

RE Hydroelectric 30 years Projects to generate electrical power using water as the potential energy source.

RE Solar Power 25 years Projects to generate electrical power with a heat engine using solar energy as the source (solar Stirling engines, heliostats, etc.)

RE Solar Photovoltaic 25 years Projects to install solar photovoltaic panels to generate electrical power.

RE Solar Thermal 25 years Projects to generate thermal energy using solar energy as the source.

RE Waste to Energy 30 years Projects to generate electrical power using waste products as the energy source.

RE Waste to Fuel 30 years Projects to generate fuel products from waste products.

RE Wind 25 years Projects to generate electrical power using wind energy as the source.

RE OT EC – Ocean 25 years Projects to generate electrical power using deep ocean thermal gradients as the source.

RE Biofuels 25 years Projects to develop liquid fuel sources (biodiesel, ethanol, etc.) from biomass feedstocks.

RE Biogas 25 years Projects to develop gas fuel sources from the breakdown of organic matter.

RE Hydrokinetic 25 years Projects to generate electrical power using the energy available in waves or water currents.

Page | 16

3.2.4. Troop Training Projects - RED HORSE (RH) & Construction and Training Squadron (CTS): The USAF has a doctrinal requirement to maintain troop contingency construction capabilities and engineering operations.

Funding is needed to provide a minimum amount of training projects necessary for units to maintain proficiency.

When not deployed, RH and CTS build and maintain skills through the completion of annual Troop Training Projects (TTPs).

3.2.4.1. Process

3.2.4.1.1. Identifying Possible TTP Requirements. Installations coordinate requirements with the TTP execution squadrons that desire to execute a specific project. The unit completing the work should conduct a site visit and timed appropriately to allow all necessary planning, programming, and design prior to the year of execution.

3.2.4.1.2. Programming Possible TTP Requirements. Installation programmers are the office of primary responsibility for ensuring proper project programming of TTP requirements. If the installation wishes to compete a requirement for execution as a TTP, programmers will identify the requirement in NexGen IT as a TTP as outlined in Appendix 5.2.7.2.. Document requirements are provided in Appendix 6.

3.2.4.1.3. Asset Management Principles. Projects submitted for TTPs must fulfill all AMP specific requirements.

3.2.4.1.4. TTP Timeline

3.2.4.1.4.1. AFCEC/CFPI will provide the consolidated list of TTP projects to AFCEC/CXXE and AFIMSC/Det 4 after the final IPL pull. Projects will be validated with all other AFCAMP projects to meet the same timelines in Table 2-1.

3.2.4.1.4.2. AFIMSC/Det 4 (OPR for CTS) and AFCEC/CXXE (OPR for RH) will coordinate the project list with the respective training units to build a list of candidate projects for prioritization.

3.2.4.1.4.3. AFIMSC/Det 4 and AFCEC/CXXE will submit the Final TTP IPL to AFCEC/CFPI

3.2.4.1.4.4. AFCEC/CFPI will insert the prioritized list of TTP projects into the IPL as a separate enterprise priority allotment for AFCAMP governance approval. Governance will establish the amount funding to be allotted to establish the TTP program for FY26.

3.2.4.2. TTP Constraints/Section Specific Guidance

3.2.4.2.1. RED HORSE and CTS Project Prioritization. TTP squadrons will prioritize projects based on several factors, to include training value, project risk, and logistic complexity. For training value, TTP squadrons will give priority to projects which provide training for the following core capabilities:

Table 3-3. TTP Capabilities Per RH Squadron

Project Type

Quantity Type

Exterior Electrical 1 High voltage, overhead to underground, or airfield lighting install/upgrade

Utility Install 1 Water, fuel, or sewer main install/upgrade

Water Well 1 Well drilling

Asphalt Pavement 1 Large asphalt placement, airfields preferred

Concrete Pavement 1 Large concrete placement, airfields preferred

Heavy Earthwork 1 Elevation/grade control

K-Span 1 Construct K-Span

Page | 17

Project Type

Quantity Type

PEB 1 Construct Pre-Engineered Building (PEB)

CMU Block 1 CMU block placement

3.2.4.2.2. Combatant Command (CCMD) Commitments. RED HORSE will consider their deployment cycle as well as training requirements and value when determining the number and type of projects considered for execution.

3.2.4.2.3. Project Execution. RH and CTS shall evaluate the risk of successfully delivering the requirement on time and within budget. Project scope and complexity will factor into the decision regarding whether or not the requirement will be executed via a TTP.

3.2.4.2.4. Labor Availability: In the event that a project selected as a TTP is not able to be executed due to availability of the execution agent (e.g., deployments, manning), the project will maintain its authority until the end of the FY in which the CTO was issued. If the project cannot be executed within that time frame, the project must be submitted to compete again at the next AFCAMP cycle.

3.2.4.2.5. Ability to Execute: All projects that were selected as TTPs and approved by AFCAMP Governance will be executed by the TTP execution agent, with the exception of removal due to labor availability.

3.2.4.2.6. TTP Program Update. NLT Dec 31 in the FY of project execution, the TTP units will provide ACEC/CFPI, AFCEC/CFTS, and the receiving unit feedback regarding whether or not the project will be accomplished prior to the end of the FY.

3.2.5. Standalone Demolition & Consolidation-Demolition:

3.2.5.1. Standalone Demolition

3.2.5.1.1. Guidance Applicability: IAW DAFI 32-1020, para.2.5.2, Standalone demolition is “Demolition of a facility (or portion of a facility) unrelated to or which is not integral to any maintenance, repair, or construction and which provides a complete and usable facility/site does not carry a work classification and can stand alone as its own project.”

3.2.5.1.2. Demolition Categorization: Standalone demolition projects will be categorized as one of two “gates” for project submission. Installations will determine the gate and assign one of the categories below. Based on the category of the demolition requirement, the installation must provide the appropriate documentation/ justification as listed below.

Gate 1

A: Airfield obstructions

Required: Wavier type and current status.

B: Risk Assessment Code (RAC) 1 or Fire Safety Deficiency (FSD) 1

Required: Case study number from Wing Safety Office or Fire Department.

C: RAC 2 or FSD 2

Required: Case study number from Wing Safety Office or Fire Department.

D: Building Condition Index (BCI) of 40 or less as indicated in SMS BUILDER.

E: Lease Termination (infrastructure located on leased land where the land lease is expiring/terminating)

Required: Documentation of official lease termination date.

Page | 18

Note: Any associated environmental cleanup costs would not be eligible for centralized FSRM funding in the AFCAMP.

Gate 2

A: Elimination of a disease vector

Required: Memo from installation Public Health stating vector exist, have existed, or are imminent without continued treatments.

B: End of life cycle, Aesthetics, Vacant, or Unneeded space

C: Other justifications not listed

3.2.5.1.3. Required Data Entry. Enter information in NexGen IT per appropriate programming guidance in Appendix.5.1.

Note: the first words of “Project Description” must start with Gate 1X or Gate 2X followed by the square footage being demolished and then the narrative for the selected gate and category. Additional data entry guidance includes:

CI = 0

Scoring MDI = 0

PEC = 93

EEIC = 320.22XX

Project Description = “Gate 1A….” or “Gate 2C….” followed by the square footage eliminated, the narrative/description of the project, and justification for the selected Gate. If the project demolishes both building and non-building assets (as determined by Real Property Asset Type “B”), the unit cost and the total cost to demolish the building and non-building assets will be annotated separately in the Project Description.

3.2.5.1.4. Demolition of Multiple Facilities. Demolition of multiple facilities can be programmed and submitted to the AFCAMP as a single project if:

3.2.5.1.4.1. Requirement complies with DAFI 32-1020 regarding work in multiple facilities.

3.2.5.1.4.2. All facilities/assets in project meet the same demolition “gate” and “category” described above.

3.2.5.1.4.3. The “Project Description” should include overall gate, category assigned to each facility, total square footage being demolished, and narrative/justification addressing each facility. If facilities programmed as single project do not qualify as the same gate, the entire project will default to the lowest gate/category identifier. If description/justification are not provided for each facility, the project will be removed from the IPL.

Note: Installations will exercise reasonable judgement regarding cost and scope when considering bundling demolition of multiple assets into a single project.

3.2.5.2. Consolidation-Demolition

3.2.5.2.1. Consolidation-Demolition projects support the Infrastructure Investment Strategy (I2S) goals of 5% area reduction and footprint growth offset through demolition. The work must contain a mix of demolition with repair and/or construction to meet a single requirement which results in a net reduction to installation facility or infrastructure quantities or increase to the Utilization Rate in the Real Property Asset Database (RPAD). All work must be related (e.g., the demolition of facility 1. cannot occur until the current function residing there is consolidated into the facility or 2. requires repair or construction to provide for the consolidation). Projects that result in an 80% utilization rate in the buildings that functions are consolidated into and demolish buildings with a BCI of 40 or less, will be the highest priorities.

3.2.5.2.2. Prioritization Options: Installations will choose one of the following options:

Page | 19

Compete among all other projects which are prioritized by the MAJCOM. A value in the installation priority field in NexGen IT will indicate projects will compete this way.

Within the enterprise priority allotment (see para.3.3.1), with funding levels to be determined by AFCAMP Governance. The installation priority field in NexGen IT will be left blank. Projects will be prioritized based on a square foot (SF) per dollar cost, weighted by the Area Cost Factor (ACF), and the resulting utilization rates of the buildings that functions are consolidated into.

3.2.5.2.3. Programming: IAW DAFI 32-1020, para 2.6.5.2 and 2.7.7, work in multiple facilities should be programmed as separate projects or as an umbrella project, with child project(s) for the facilities consolidation work and separate child project(s) for the facilities to be demolished. All renovation and demolition costs required to achieve a given consolidation-demolition requirement (i.e., the entire umbrella/project required to achieve the consolidation and demolition requirement) must be included, therefore, umbrella costs from multiple child projects will be included when calculating this ratio.

3.2.5.2.4. Submission Identification. In order to identify projects competing the funding enterprise priority set-aside, they will comply with the following:

The project title will begin with “CNSLD/DEMO”. See A.5.1.1 for further guidance on project titles.

The project will be included in the installation’s Facility Space Optimization Plan (FSOP), which can be either in the CPP or in the template located in the Template Repository of the Facility Space Planning and Optimization Portal.

3.2.5.2.5.