PWS Attachment 3 - FY27-31 AFCAMP_Business_Rules.pdf

Page | 1

FY27-31 AFCAMP BUSINESS RULES

1. FY27-31 AFCAMP Overview (Integrated Tasking Order)

1.1. Summary of Major Changes for FY27-31

1.2. Integrated Tasking Order

1.3. Governance

2. AFCAMP Methodology & Timeline

2.1. AFCAMP Methodology

2.2. Timelines

Figure 2-1. FY27-31 AFCAMP Timeline

Table 2-1. FY27-31 CTO/PTO/TTPTO/USSFTO Development Milestones

Table 2-2. FY27-31 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 – Corrective Action Plan (CAP)

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. FY26 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. FY27-31 AFCAMP Overview (Integrated Tasking Order)

1.1. Summary of Major Changes for FY27-31

The Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP) Business Rules, supporting the build of the Integrated Tasking Order (ITO), have been thoroughly reviewed for the FY27-31 cycle. The changes listed below have been approved through the AFCAMP governance. Once approved and published, these rules supersede all previous versions and are immediately applicable to any ongoing projects.

1.1.1. Administrative Changes: It is recommended to review the entire document in its entirety as minor to major changes have occurred throughout the AFCAMP Business Rules.

1.1.2. AFCAMP Milestones and Timelines: Projects will continue to be primarily prioritized by Major Command (MAJCOM) priority points (Chapter 2 and para.3.3.); the exception are Enterprise Priority Allotment (Business Case) requirements. The AFCAMP milestones similarly will continue to reflect the new processes first 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.

1.1.3.1. Troop Training Program Tasking Order (TTPTO): Troop Training Projects will now be given funding authority underneath the TTPTO, managed by AFCEC/CXX. Although the TTPTO is now a separate Tasking Order, the fund source remains within the overall CTO funding. Thus, the TTPTO is treated as an enterprise priority allotment during governance to determine the amount of funding to be allotted. All processes to include data entry, advocation, and validation that occurred for TTPs in the AFCAMP remain the same up until the ITO is issued.

1.1.3.2. Unfunded Design and Design Refresh in Capital Projects: Guidance provided in A.5.2.2. on how to do data entry in NexGen IT for identifying when an unfunded design or design refresh is seeking CTO funding authority.

1.1.4. Large Projects: Large Projects (PA >$50M) will be prioritized through the Major Construction Working Group (MCWG) 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.

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

1.1.6. Project Offsets for Cost-Growth: Project Offsets to account for Cost-Growth, referenced in para. 3.7.1. has been deleted.

1.1.7. Enterprise Focus Investment Prioritization: Para 3.3.5 introduces the methodology in which focused investment requirements will be prioritized in AFCAMP governance. Due to the evolving guidance on which infrastructure categories and/or how directed investment will be targeted per FY, this section is generalized to allow flexibility during the AFCAMP creation to determine what techniques, processes, and procedures will be used to meet investment objectives.

1.1.8. US Space Force Tasking Order (USSFTO): 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 AFCAMP is the process used for requirements prioritization and 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

Page | 3 are eligible. Eligible projects will be considered for inclusion in the AFCAMP Integrated Priority List (IPL) for the various Tasking Orders. The term ITO represents the collective combination of the following tasking orders:

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)

1.2.1.1.3. Troop Training Program Tasking Order (TTPTO)

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 lists for each tasking 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 FY27 through FY31, and ensure they are correctly entered in the applicable system of record (NexGen IT). FY27 programmed requirements will be prioritized for funding and execution in FY27. 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. FY27 PTO and projects submitted for FY27 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 FY27 programmed requirements should be able to have funds obligated by 30 Jun 2027. 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 FY27 budgets and provides authority-to-advertise with some limitations.

Page | 4

Figure 1-1. AFCAMP Governance Structure

Page | 5

2. AFCAMP Methodology & Timeline

2.1. AFCAMP Methodology

IAW AFPD 32-10 and AFI 32-1001, the AFCAMP employs a systematic, sustainable strategy to prioritize projects for authorization of centralized Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, Modernization, and Demolition (FSRMD) funding, enabling asset management for all aspects of installations and infrastructure (both natural and built).

2.1.1. Process Overview

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

2.1.1.2. MAJCOMs will consolidate installation inputs and provide AFCEC/CFPI with a MAJCOM prioritized list (MCAMP). AFCEC/CFPI will merge MAJCOM priorities to develop a single pre-draft IPL and present to AFCAMP governance. AFCAMP governance will determine the draft IPL, apply projected funding authorization cut lines, and approve a pre-final ITO. AFCEC/CFPI will publish the pre-final ITO IPL which will list the projects expected above the cut line in FY27.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1.4. Requirements Development: The Requirements Development Process starts with the installation Work Request Review Board (WRRB) when the requirement is approved for accomplishment by contract. It documents the development of requirements all the way to the design contract award. The Requirements Development Process consists of three separate processes: Planning Development, Scope Development, and Charrette Development.

Planning and Scoping Development are accomplished on the CPP for projects above thresholds described in Appendix 6.

Page | 6

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1.7.4. USAF TTPTO: RED HORSE and CTS units should submit funding requests to AFCEC/CXX REDHORSE (AFCEC.CXX.REDHORSE@us.af.mil). For additional guidance and information on the RED HORSE program, see the RED_HORSE webpage.

Page | 7

2.2. Timelines

Figure 2-1. FY27-31 AFCAMP Timeline

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

Page | 8

Table 2-1. FY27-31 CTO/PTO/TTPTO/USSFTO Development Milestones

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

Mid Apr 2025 AFCEC Release Final FY27-31 Business Rules April-May AFCEC/CFPI FY27 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

30 May Installations

Deadline: For applicable projects requesting FY27 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

1 Aug AFCEC/CFPI Final IPL Pull: Facilities Board priorities due in NexGen IT. Send list of potential Troop Training Projects (TTPs) to AFCEC/CXX for consideration

29 Aug Enterprise w/ Installations Deadline: – For applicable projects requesting FY27 funding, complete CPP vector checks; projects without enterprise concurrence are at risk for being deferred to FY28

26 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/CF AFCAMP Board #1: Review preliminary funding levels and initial review of draft IPL to determine validation requirements

7 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/CF AFCAMP Board #2: Supplemental review of draft IPLs to determine enterprise priorities

9 Jan 2026 Installations Deadline: Submit AFCAMP Validation documents. Incomplete submissions are at risk for being deferred to FY28

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

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

6 Mar AFCEC/ALL Deadline: Resolve validation comments. All projects not resolved are at risk for being deferred to FY28

Mar AFCEC/CF

AFCAMP 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 FY28-32 Business Rules for release.

Early-Apr AFCEC/CF AFCAMP Board #4: Address issues to finalize the FY27-31 PTO, CTO, USSFTO, EQ, MFH, and UMMC IPLs and reach concurrence

Mid-Apr AFCEC/CC AFCAMP Council: Approve FY27-31 IPLs and FY27 ITO; Sign and Issue Quadripartite Memo; Publish FY28-32 Business Rules

15 July Installations Deadline: Submit a full DD1391 draft package to the HHQ Project Authorization Tool for projects that receive FY27 CTO execution authority AND exceed installation approval authority

Page | 9

Table 2-2. FY27-31 AFCAMP MFHTO Development Milestones

Mid Apr 2025 AFCEC Release FY27-31 Business Rules May-Jun AFCEC/CIMH FY27 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 FY27 funding and are at risk of being deferred to FY28

31 Jan 2026 AFCEC/ALL Deadline: Validators complete initial project reviews & feedback

20 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 FY28 or removed from IPL

Early-Apr AFCEC/CF AFCAMP Board #4: Address issues to finalize the FY27-31 PTO, CTO, USSFTO, EQ, MFH, and UMMC IPLs and reach concurrence

Mid-Apr AFCEC/CC AFCAMP Council: Approve FY27-31 IPLs and FY27 ITO; Sign and Issue Quadripartite Memo; Publish FY28-32 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

Cost Element 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): 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 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 and requiring MAJCOM must ensure requirements are identified, are properly programmed, and required validation documents are prepared and 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. Each enterprise allotment prioritizes projects in accordance with their specified methodlogy to produce a pre-draft IPL, but AFCAMP governance ultimately determines the draft and final IPL prioritizations.

Design: Provides design funding for requirements projected to be above-the-cut line for execution in FY28 or FY29 CTO to ensure these projects are ready to execute in that 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.

o For data entry requirements, see A.5.2.2.

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) and Troop Training Program Tasking Order (TTPTO) (para 3.2.4) are separate Tasking Orders, the fund source is allocated from the overall centralized FSRM portfolio for the USAF CTO. Thus, the PTO and TTPO are treated as enterprise priority allotments during governance to determine the amount of funding authority to be allocated.

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. 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), NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP), 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.

Page | 13

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 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 (Pre-Draft IPL): MAJCOMs will prioritize these projects and submit as described in para.3.3.3. Projects will first compete based on their MAJCOM priority point values as described in para.3.3.3.3.

3.2.2.3.2. Nomination of Projects (Working Group, Draft IPL): Projects below the CTO budget cut line may be nominated by the Requiring MAJCOM to move above the budget cut line, subject to further consideration by AFCAMP governance.

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

MAJCOM priority.

Risk to portfolio.

SIR (see formula below).

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

Relationships with the 3rd party and political considerations.

Strategic mission importance.

3.2.2.3.4. Advocacy Slides: As required in A.6.3.9., advocacy slides will be used by governance to prioritize and determine if 3PF project will move above-the-budget cut line.

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

SIR = ൬

3𝑟𝑑 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑦 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡

𝐴𝐹 𝐹𝑆𝑅𝑀 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑚𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡

൰

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

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.

Page | 14

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.

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 creditable in consideration for the Energy Savings program.

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

Page | 15

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

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.

Page | 16

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.

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 as TTPs must by developed IAW asset management principles outlined in Section 2.1.

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 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. AFCEC/CXX will serve as the OPR for both CTS and RH, and 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. 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. AFCAMP governance will establish the funding authority to be allotted.

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:

Page | 17

Table 3-3. TTP Capabilities Per RH Squadron

Project Type Type

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

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

Water Well Well drilling

Asphalt Pavement Large asphalt placement, airfields preferred

Concrete Pavement Large concrete placement, airfields preferred

Heavy Earthwork Elevation/grade control

K-Span Construct K-Span

PEB Construct Pre-Engineered Building (PEB)

CMU Block 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 TTPTO 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 31 March in the FY of project execution, the TTP units will provide AFCEC/CFPI, AFCEC/CXX, 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: Waiver type and current status.

Page | 18

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.

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 vectors 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:

Page | 19

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. Intent: Consolidation-Demolition projects support the Installation Infrastructure Action Plan (I2AP) goals to reduce the size of the physical plant and increase the resilience of infrastructure. 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:

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.