Attachment 7 2021_Value Study Report Guide.pdf

Value Study Report Guide

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. REPORT GUIDE OVERVIEW

1.1. PURPOSE OF GUIDE

1.2. CONTENT AND STRUCTURE

2. VALUE STUDY REPORT CONTENT AND STRUCTURE

2.1. COVER

2.2. TABLE OF CONTENTS

2.3. VALUE STUDY RESULTS AND PROPOSALS

2.3.1. Executive Summary

2.3.2. Value Study Proposals

2.4. APPENDICES – VALUE STUDY DOCUMENTATION

2.4.1. Appendix A: Value Study Overview

2.4.2. Appendix B: Project Analysis

2.4.3. Appendix C: Function Analysis

2.4.4. Appendix D: Idea List and Idea Evaluation

2.4.5. Appendix E: Supplemental Information

2.4.6. Appendix F: Value Engineering Reporting System (VERS) Data

2.4.7. Certification Statement

3. REPORT DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION

3.1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1.1. Internal Stakeholders

3.1.2. External Stakeholders

3.2. QA/QC PROCESS

3.3. REPORT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

4. REPORT FORMATTING

4.1. FONT AND STYLE

4.2. DOCUMENT FUNCTIONALITY

4.2.1. Page Numbering

4.2.2. Bookmarks and Hyperlinks

4.2.3. PDF View Settings

5. CHECKLISTS

6. APPENDIX: VALUE STUDY EVALUATION TOOL

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 1

1. REPORT GUIDE OVERVIEW

1.1. PURPOSE OF GUIDE

The purpose of the Value Study Report Guide is to establish standards and specifications for the development, review, and distribution of draft and final value study reports and related content.

The guidance provided in this document is intended to be performance-based, with a few exceptions. The Certified Value Specialist® (CVS®) Team Leader responsible for preparing the value study report is afforded the latitude to develop reports in the manner he or she sees fit, but should follow the framework and include the key content identified in this guide to ensure that all value study reports share a similar level of consistency and completeness across U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

1.2. CONTENT AND STRUCTURE

Much thought has been given to developing a standard value study report structure that aligns with the users’ needs. USACE value study reports must support two basic functions:

• Facilitate Decisions - Value studies are performed with the intent to identify proposals that will improve the value of the project, program, or process that is under study. The recommendations that are the result of a value study must be sufficiently detailed and presented such that they enable stakeholders to make decisions related to implementing them. Therefore, the focus of the value study report should be to facilitate this decision-making process.

• Certify Compliance - It is of the express interest of USACE to ensure that value studies performed under its auspices are conducted consistent with both USACE and professional standards. Toward this end, the value study report must adequately document the Value Methodology (VM) activities performed during the workshop and provide evidence of the techniques used and analysis performed. This information will be leveraged to support USACE Value Program activities on future projects. Certification that the report complies with the USACE Value Standard formally indicates that it is permitted to be used for this purpose.

In support of these functions, the structure of USACE value study reports follows this logic. The body of the report, which includes the Executive Summary, value proposals, and recommendations, supports the first function, Facilitate Decisions. This will focus readers concerned with the results to the body of the report. The second function, Certify Compliance, is supported by the appendices, which contain the documentation that indicates the value study adhered to the VM process.

All templates referenced in this document are available for consultant use from the DVO.

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 2

2. VALUE STUDY REPORT CONTENT AND STRUCTURE

This section provides guidance on USACE value study report structure, content, and format.

2.1. COVER

This section specifies the cover page format requirements to ensure all information is presented consistently. If the report is used later for bridging or scanning, having all relevant project information stated on the cover simplifies those processes. Covers should include the following:

• Report Title Draft vs. Final, etc.

• USACE Logo This should be equal to or larger than the CVS® firm’s logo

• Project Photo/Image This should be a large portion of the cover

• Project Name and Location

• USACE District or Division

• Project P2#

• VE Activity # This information can be obtained from VERS by the DVO

• Study Dates The range of dates representing the study duration

• Report Date This is the date the report is submitted to the DVO

• Name/Logo of CVS® firm

2.2. TABLE OF CONTENTS

The Table of Contents (TOC) orients the reader and facilitates review and navigation. Each major heading in the TOC should be appropriately hyperlinked or bookmarked. Page numbering shall start with the Value Study Results, and each appendix shall have its own numbering (A-1 for Appendix A, B-1 for Appendix B). At a minimum, the TOC should include the following:

• Executive Summary o Value Study Results o Value Study Background

• Value Study Results and Proposals o Table of Value Proposals o Recommended Value Proposals o Quality Review Comments o Individual Value Proposals

• Appendices - Value Study Documentation o Appendix A: Value Study Overview o Appendix B: Project Analysis o Appendix C: Function Analysis o Appendix D: Idea List and Idea Evaluation o Appendix E: Supplemental Information (if necessary) o Appendix F: Value Engineering Reporting System (VERS) Data

Revise to Appendix E if there is no Supplemental Information o Certification Statement (always the final page of the report)

Value Study Report Part I

Part II

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 3

2.3. VALUE STUDY RESULTS AND PROPOSALS (PART I)

Part I of the value study report is focused on the information of direct benefit to those involved with the value study subject (i.e., the project team, key decision-makers, stakeholders, etc.). This first section of the report body includes the Executive Summary and the Value Study Proposals, and contains detailed information concerning the value proposals and design review comments.

2.3.1. Executive Summary

The Executive Summary provides an overview of the overall value study effort. It should be written as if it may be the only portion of the report decision-makers will read to determine if action is warranted relative to the recommendations developed by the value team. It must grab their attention and entice them to read through the more in-depth documentation in the remainder of the report.

The Executive Summary includes a Value Study Results summary (one page) and the Value Study Background (one to two pages maximum).

2.3.1.1. Value Study Results

The Value Study Results is a brief synopsis of the entire value study effort. A standard template shall be used to capture the relevant information. This one-page document has the dual purpose of serving as a summary of the results, and also, as a vehicle for marketing the broader benefits of the USACE Value Program. Therefore, there is a desire to maintain consistency of this document from one report to the next in terms of the information contained and overall appearance.

The Value Study Results template includes the following information:

• USACE Logo

• Project Name

• Project Location

• USACE District or Division

• Representative image/graphic that best conveys the study benefits

• Value Study Dates

• Value Study Timing (e.g., 90% DDR, 30% P&S, etc.)

• Original Project Cost

• Project P2#

• Proposed Initial Cost Avoidance

• Schedule Savings

• Value Study Return on Investment

• Qualitative Impacts o Reliability o Operations & Maintenance o Functionality

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 4

• Project Overview

• Value Study Benefits

• Key Recommendations

The information used to populate the Value Study Results summary in the Draft Value Study Report will be developed by the value team and will focus on their initial recommendations. For example, the initial cost avoidance and schedule savings should reflect the maximum potential sum of the quantitative value proposals that are recommended (as articulated in the Value Proposals section of the report). Information related to Reliability, Operations and Maintenance (O&M), and Functionality should reflect the value team’s judgment relative to the aggregate, qualitative benefits of each value proposal. Options for evaluating the performance categories are limited to: Improved, Maintained, or Degraded. Return on Investment (ROI) should initially be calculated based on the total cost avoidance of the recommended mutually exclusive value proposals, minus the value study costs (provided by the DVO and defind in Section 2.4.6), and then divided by the value study costs.

The Value Study Results presented in the Final Value Study Report should be based on information obtained following the Preliminary Decision Meeting (i.e., accepted value proposals).

It is recommended that the DVO consult with the project manager during the Value Workshop Evaluation process to review the value study benefits and their views on the qualitative performance impacts related to Reliability, O&M, and Functionality. The total cost avoidance and schedule savings should reflect the sum of the accepted mutually exclusive value proposals.

The term “Recommended Results” is used for the draft report. The term “Accepted Results” is used for the final report. In addition to appearing in the report, the completed Value Study Results Microsoft Word template should be provided to the DVO as a stand-alone document.

2.3.1.2. Value Study Background

This section of the report provides additional context to assist the reader in developing a deeper understanding of the conditions and environment in which the value study was performed. This section should be one to two pages maximum and address the following topics:

2.3.1.2.1. Key Challenges and Issues - Discuss the major challenges, risks, and issues facing the project.

2.3.1.2.2. Constraints - Elaborate on the key constraints that were placed on the project team and the Value Study effort.

2.3.1.2.3. Value Study Objectives - Based on the challenges, issues, and constraints that were identified above, what were the explicit objectives of the value study?

2.3.1.2.4. Value Study Highlights - What key information was uncovered during the value study that led to important value improvements identified in this report? How did the VM process lead the team to identify and develop these value improvements (i.e., use of Function Analysis, team creativity, risk analysis, etc.)?

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 5

2.3.2. Value Study Proposals

2.3.2.1. Section Overview

This section is a narrative overview of the content that follows, including a description of the types of recommendations developed by the value team. This is intended to serve as a focal point to support a common understanding and management of studies across USACE.

Value proposals may be considered quantitative or qualitative. For purposes of consistent reporting with other federal agencies, quantitative value proposals are only those that reduce the initial or first cost of the project, program, or process being studied. This is to support the specific requirements of upward reporting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Instead of including all proposals that add or reduce cost, which would show a net benefit, the purpose is to demonstrate the maximum potential benefit offered to the customer.

Qualitative proposals are those that either add initial cost or do not have a cost impact. Generally speaking, a good mnemonic device for remembering the difference between qualitative and quantitative proposals is that qualitative proposals are those that add quality, and quantitative proposals are those that reduce upfront costs. Future life cycle costs (maintenance, replacement, etc.) do not factor into the determination of whether a proposal is quantitative or qualitative.

In certain instances, there may be ideas that the value team initially selected for development but ultimately were unable to develop during the value study due to lack of time. Do not identify these as qualitative proposals. As they have not been developed, do not seek a formal response from the project delivery team (PDT). Rather, identify those ideas separately as potentially offering value improvement and worth the PDT’s consideration in addition to the value proposals that were fully developed.

Quality review comments represent another category of recommendations. Quality review comments are observations made during the value team’s review and are not typically the result of Function Analysis or creative thinking. Common examples of quality review comments include errors, omissions, estimate corrections, schedule corrections, and document quality issues.

Quality review comments do not require a formal response to accept or reject.

Note: This guide considers “design suggestions” an outdated term that should no longer be used.

Going forward, the CVS® Team Leader should focus on categorizing proposals and recommendations into one of the categories described above.

2.3.2.2. Table of Value Proposals

This section is intended to provide a quick summary of the proposals that were developed as part of the value study. There shall be a single table that lists all proposals, both quantitative and qualitative. Recommended value proposals, as indicated in the “Recommended Value Proposals” section of this guide, shall be presented within the “Total” portion of the table.

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 6

The information contained within the table includes the following.

Draft Value Study Report - The draft report shall include strategies recommended by the value team.

• Proposal Number

• Proposal Title

• First Cost (increase/decrease)

• Life Cycle Cost (Gross) (increase/decrease)

• Preliminary Decision (include a space in the table but leave blank in the draft report) o Accept: any proposal that is accepted in part or in whole. The concept is “intent to integrate.” It is possible that the proposal ultimately is not feasible and is not implemented in later design o Reject: any proposal that is 100% rejected.

• Preliminary Decision Rationale

Final Value Study Report - The final report shall incorporate the acceptance and rejection of the proposals as determined by the Preliminary Decision Document. Thus, the strategies and/or proposals within the strategies may change from the draft to the final report. The final report contains:

• All items listed in the Draft Report.

• Preliminary Decision - This section should now be completed and include a record of acceptance or rejection. If the proposal is accepted with conditions, is accepted with modification, or rejected, a brief justification shall be included explaining the decision. If the proposal was accepted outright, no justification is necessary.

2.3.2.3. Recommended Value Proposals

Following the development of the value proposals, the value team must next consider how they could be applied to the project in concert with one another. The value team may develop multiple potential groupings or strategies for consideration by the decision-makers. It is not essential to consider every possible permutation at this point, only those that seem to be the most logical and beneficial to the project objectives. Common value strategy themes include:

• Recommended - What is the value team’s recommended list of value proposals? What would they pursue if it were their project? Typically, this grouping should reflect the combination of proposals that offer the “best value.”

• Greatest Cost Reduction - A group of proposals that would have the greatest total reduction in project cost. This could either be first/initial cost or life cycle cost.

• Highest Performance - A group of proposals that would have the greatest level of qualitative benefit to the project (regardless of cost impact).

• Shortest Schedule - A group of proposals that would offer the greatest time savings.

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 7

• Lowest Risk - A group of proposals that would have the greatest impact on managing project risk.

Other themes could revolve around competing design approaches (for example, proposals that supported different building configurations). Often, a value team will identify multiple ways to solve a problem that are mutually exclusive. The proposals that support these separate approaches can be grouped into value strategies.

At a minimum, the value team should identify their “Recommended” set of value proposals, as this will be used to perform the various calculations needed for the Value Study Benefits Summary.

2.3.2.4. Quality Review Comments

This section should be a summary of any quality review comments that the value team has identified during the value study. These comments are typically only recommending corrections or identifying concerns relating to the quality of the project documents provided (cost estimate, drawings, specifications, schedule, etc.). The types of comments that would fall into this category could include, but are not limited to:

• Errors

• Omissions

• Schedule Corrections

• Estimate Corrections

• Document Quality Issues

2.3.2.5. Individual Proposals

This section provides guidance on the structure and content of individual value proposal write-ups. The primary focus of these write-ups is to provide enough detail for the reader to make an informed decision. Individual value proposal write-ups should include the following items:

2.3.2.5.1. Proposal Title and Number - The title is typically the reader’s introduction to a developed proposal; it creates the reader’s first impression of the proposal.

Generally, the developed proposal title is written during brainstorming. While this initial title may be understood by the value team during the context of the workshop, it does not always translate well to the reader of the report.

A complete value proposal title should include the following three components: the new idea, the current or baseline plan, and the reason to change. For example, instead of using a title such as “Use gravel for roads,” the title should be more specific: “Use gravel in lieu of paving for temporary roads during construction”.

2.3.2.5.2. BLUF Section - Each value proposal write-up should begin with a Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF) statement that is eye-catching and clearly conveys the proposal’s

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 8 merits. This section should have a similar format and appearance to the Value Study Results Summary.

• Value Proposal Synopsis - A brief (one- to two-sentence) statement summarizing the proposal’s value proposition. It should address questions such as: Why is it a good idea?; What is the value team’s perspective?; and Why is this proposal better than the baseline concept (risks, performance, safety, etc.)? This is the 15-second elevator sales pitch; it should be succinct and impactful. It is not intended to replace the fuller explanation in the discussion that follows.

• Cost Avoidance - Bottom-line number of estimated cost avoidance for this value proposal. This can also show cost increase if applicable. Because this figure refers to cost avoidance, a positive number indicates a reduction in cost and a negative number indicates an increase in cost.

• Schedule Savings - The time savings anticipated to result from the proposal.

• Qualitative Benefits - Identify the impact of the proposal on the following three areas (at a minimum):

o Reliability - Impact on the robustness and service life of the value study subject.

o Operations & Maintenance - Impact on future and long-term operations (i.e., energy, personnel, etc.) and maintenance (i.e., spare parts, routine maintenance, repairs, etc.) related to the value study subject.

o Functionality - Impact on the performance and/or quality of the value study subject.

Indicate the impact using one of three terms:

o Improved - Performance will be improved from the baseline.

o Maintained - Performance will not change relative to the baseline.

o Degraded - Performance will be reduced from the baseline.

2.3.2.5.3. Baseline Concept - The intent of this section is to briefly describe the baseline concept that would be changed by the relevant value proposal.

2.3.2.5.4. Value Proposal Description - The intent of this section is to provide a brief summary of the value proposal relative to the baseline concept.

2.3.2.5.5. Advantages and Disadvantages - The intent of this section is to provide a quick look at the “why” for this specific value proposal. Why is this value proposal better

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 9 or worse than the baseline concept? These advantages and disadvantages should be presented as bulleted lists, to enable the reader to quickly and easily understand the potential benefits and drawbacks of the value proposal. The items listed here should be more specific than increased cost or decreased cost.

Schedule, risk, maintenance, durability, life cycle impacts and other similar characteristics related to the project should be addressed. Remember, cost is generally associated with something specific (i.e., reduced labor, equipment, materials, unwanted secondary function, etc.), so it is best to identify the underlying cause of the reduction as the cost will be explicitly shown in the BLUF section.

2.3.2.5.6. Discussion and Justification - The intent of this section is to provide an in-depth analysis of the value proposal. This analysis dives deeper into how the value proposal can be implemented in the design, as well as providing detailed justification for why it is a better idea than the baseline concept design. Sufficient detail should be included to allow the reader to see this is a viable proposal that will improve the value of the project. The following items are examples of what should be included in this section when applicable:

• Technical Considerations

• Performance Impacts

• Cost Considerations

• Schedule Impacts

• Risk Considerations

• Project Management Considerations

• Stakeholder Acceptance

• Implementation Considerations

2.3.2.5.7. Review Comments - As part of the individual value proposal write-up, any review comments and feedback received during the mid-point review should be specifically called out here and addressed by the value team if applicable. By doing this, the value team demonstrates that they have heard and listened to comments and concerns of the project team and/or stakeholders and have addressed those comments and concerns to show that the value proposal is still viable.

2.3.2.5.8. Sketches/Diagrams - Sketches and diagrams of both the baseline design concept and the value proposal should be included, where applicable, to assist the reader in visualizing how the proposal differs from the baseline concept.

2.3.2.5.9. Assumptions and Calculations - Any assumptions made or supporting calculations that were developed to support the quantities used in the cost estimate(s), for both initial and life cycle cost (LCC) should be included.

2.3.2.5.10. Cost Estimates - Include as detailed a cost estimate as possible (avoid one-line, or lump-sum estimates) to support cost reporting (potential cost avoidance, cost savings or costs added) and modified acceptance easier to understand what was

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 10 accepted. The more detailed, precise quantities used, the more credible the costs reported. Provide the source of costs where applicable: RSMeans, vendor quotes, previous contracts, etc. LCC estimates should be included when relevant.

2.4. APPENDICES – VALUE STUDY DOCUMENTATION (PART II)

The information in this section of the report provides all remaining supporting documentation relevant to the project and value study effort. This information is required for the following reasons:

• Provides documentation of the VM tools and techniques applied during the value study.

This information will be used during the Post Workshop Evaluation Process and to ensure compliance with the USACE Value Standard.

• Supports the CVSⓇ application process for USACE personnel. The information in this section of the report may be included in the CVSⓇ application process.

2.4.1. Appendix A: Value Study Overview

2.4.1.1. Introduction

The purpose of the overview is to establish the context of the value study effort. This is an opportunity to capture what happened during the workshop and how it influenced the direction and results of the team’s effort.

2.4.1.2. Project Description

2.4.1.2.1. List of Documents Reviewed

Include a list of the documents that were reviewed and used by the value team to develop their understanding of the project, product, or process and establish study goals, objectives, and constraints. Be sure to note versions or publication dates of any documents provided for review.

This section of the report should include a note instructing the reader to contact the PM to obtain full copies of the documents listed. This will make it clear that the PM should be the main POC for obtaining these documents as needed.

2.4.1.2.2. In-Brief

Provide a synopsis of the in-brief presentation. Identify any highlights or key discussions (do not include PowerPoint slides).

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 11

2.4.1.2.3. Site Visit

State whether a site visit was performed for the value study. If a “virtual” site visit was performed, indicate how it was conducted. If a site visit was performed, identify key observations and highlight any takeaways that contributed to the value team’s understanding of the project.

2.4.1.2.4. Mid-Point Review

Include a paragraph describing what type of presentation was made and what key issues/points were identified or emphasized to the value team. Identify participants and include any specific comments that may have influenced the rest of the workshop or the recommendations/proposals developed by the team.

2.4.1.2.5. Presentation

Identify what type of presentation was made, summarize key issues or points of clarification that were presented, and participants from all organizations represented. If any comments or questions were received that influenced the value team’s recommendations, those should be captured in the report (do not include PowerPoint slides).

2.4.1.3. VM Process

This section provides a narrative description of the activities performed relative to VM Job Plan and later appendices. This section should summarize the work completed in each phase in support of the VM Job Plan and how it contributed to the overall process and outcome of the value study. For example, demonstrate how the identification of functions led to better ideas in the Creativity Phase. The following list identifies the type of information to include for each phase of the VM Job Plan.

1. Preparation Phase: Include a summary of the pre-workshop effort completed prior to the actual workshop.

2. Information Phase: Identify key information acquired during this phase and how this affected subsequent phases.

3. Function Analysis Phase: Identify technique(s) used to generate functions and resulting Function Analysis.

4. Creativity Phase: Identify ideas that were generated by the team and their disposition (i.e., developed, combined with other ideas, dismissed). The team is encouraged to generate and sort ideas based on functions.

5. Evaluation Phase: Identify how the team narrowed down the ideas from the previous step. Describe the technique used and resulting rationale that led to the team’s decision.

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 12

6. Development Phase: Details of this phase will be demonstrated in the proposals that are developed and presented in Part I of the report.

7. Presentation Phase: Identify the communication technique used for the study and any special considerations that led to the team’s delivery.

8. Preliminary Decision: Include summary information of the preliminary decision meeting with the Project Delivery Team to establish disposition of the value proposals. Minimum information should include participants, meeting date, significant concerns that were identified, and accept/reject status.

2.4.1.4. Participants

Note who participated in the value study workshop, the organizations represented, participants’ role in the value study, and their level of participation (full-time, in-brief, mid-point review, out-brief). This section should also identify support roles and co-facilitators. There should be only one participant list, and it should identify the dates on which the value team members met.

2.4.1.5. Agenda

The report should include a detailed, actualized agenda for the value study. This is important in evaluating time allocated to phases of the VM process as well as the workshop as a whole.

2.4.2. Appendix B: Project Analysis

This section of the report is intended to capture value study activities that were performed relative to cost, performance, schedule, and risk in relation to the VM Job Plan. This section should include the following types of information, include a brief paragraph that describes the action(s) taken, and include applicable content:

• Cost models used in the preparation of the value study (i.g., Pareto Chart).

• Flowcharts developed in support of the value study.

• Performance or quality assessments or evaluations.

• Schedule Analysis - Any such analysis that was performed as part of the value study, techniques, and a statement of findings, or recommendations should be included.

• If a formal cost estimate review validation was performed as part of the value study, techniques, and a statement of findings, or recommendations should be included.

• If risk analysis was performed as part of the value study, summarize the techniques used, and provide a statement of findings or recommendations. Include a risk register or other documents developed, if applicable.

Include any additional Information Phase-type analysis as necessary.

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 13

2.4.3. Appendix C: Function Analysis

Function Analysis is the heart of Value Methodology. As such, this portion of the study and the report is a focal point representing the industry. The CVS® Paper topic required for the CVS® application instructs the author to discuss Function Analysis and how it led the team to the outcomes of the study. Appendix C should follow the same approach: what type of Function Analysis was used and why was that particular method chosen; how were the functions prioritized for use in the Creativity Phase, and; how did the functions broaden the team’s creativity? At a minimum, Random Function Identification shall be performed. Several examples of different types of Function Analysis that may be included in this section are listed below.

• Random Function Identification

• Function-Resource Matrix

• Function Analysis System Technique (FAST) Diagram

• Function Cost/Worth

• Function Hierarchy

2.4.4. Appendix D: Idea List and Idea Evaluation

This section of the report is intended to capture value study activities that were performed relative to the Creativity and Evaluation Phases of the VM Job Plan. This section should include the following types of information:

• The total number of ideas generated and the total number of ideas that were developed.

• List of ideas organized by function.

• Evaluation techniques used (e.g., nominal group technique, numerical ratings, evaluation matrices) and their results. Describe what method(s) was used and include relevant evaluation comments and discussions.

• Any other types of Creativity or Evaluation Phase activities that demonstrate the tools and techniques used in the value study

This information may be used as a supplementary resource to the value study report recipients as a source of additional ideas and related evaluation rationale.

2.4.5. Appendix E: Supplemental Information

If additional technical information is developed during the value study effort and deemed of use to the report recipients, it should be placed in Appendix E. It is recommended that a reference to this additional material is made in the appropriate sections of the report so that readers can easily find and navigate to this information. Examples may include: references, analysis, cut sheets, specifications, presentations, etc.

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 14

2.4.6. Appendix F: Value Engineering Reporting System (VERS) Data

VERS Data should be the last appendix of the report. If Appendix E: Supplemental Information is not required, then this appendix can be moved up to Appendix E. This section of the report is intended to be rigid in nature to support USACE reporting requirements. It is critical for consistent reporting that a common understanding of the terms used within VERS is established.

The CVS® Team Leader is responsible for including this information in the draft value study report.

This information should be updated (as necessary) following the preliminary determination step of the post-workshop phase. The DVO is responsible for ensuring the necessary VERS information is included in the report and may be required to provide or supplement specific components of this data (e.g., VE Activity Cost).

A version of the following table shall be completed to capture the information needed from the value study to input into VERS. This table can be partially completed at the time of the draft value study report and then updated to reflect the Preliminary Decision in the final value study report.

The DVO should verify the information in this table before transferring it to VERS.

Appendix F: VERS Data

VERS Data Fields Data Report Version

Number of Proposals Developed # Draft

Number of Accepted Proposals # Final

Number of Quantitative Proposals # Draft

Number of Accepted Quantitative Proposals # Final

Number of Qualitative Proposals # Draft

Number of Accepted Qualitative Proposals # Final

Potential/Projected Cost Avoidance (Gross) $ Draft

Accepted Cost Avoidance $ Final

Maximum Life Cycle Cost (Gross) $ Draft

Accepted Life Cycle Cost $ Final

VE Activity Cost (DVO to provide) $ Draft

Return on Investment Ratio (ex: 2:1) Final

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 15

VERS Data Field Definitions

Number of Proposals Developed: Total number of all Quantitative Proposals and Qualitative Proposals developed in the value study report

Number of Accepted Proposals: Total number of all Quantitative Proposals and Qualitative Proposals accepted for implementation

Number of Quantitative Proposals: The total number of proposals that generate a reduction in First Cost (not Life Cycle Cost).

Number of Accepted Quantitative Proposals: The total number of quantitative proposals accepted for implementation.

Number of Qualitative Proposals: Total number of proposals that generate an increase in First Cost (not Life Cycle Cost) or ideas that do not have a cost generated. This does not include Quality Review Comments.

Number of Accepted Qualitative Proposals: The total number of Qualitative Proposals accepted for implementation.

Potential/Projected Cost Avoidance (Gross): Maximum first cost avoidance considering a combination of mutually non-exclusive proposals (i.e., only count the impacts of one mutually exclusive proposal).

Accepted Cost Avoidance: Total first cost avoidance amount of accepted Quantitative Proposals.

Maximum Life Cycle Cost (Gross): Maximum Life Cycle Cost possible considering a combination of mutually non-exclusive proposals (i.e., only count one mutually exclusive proposal in the total combination). Life Cycle Costs are inclusive of first cost avoidance, thus if there is a Cost Avoidance of $1M and a Life Cycle Cost of $0, the Life Cycle Cost reported will be $1M.

Accepted Life Cycle Cost: Total Life Cycle Cost amount of accepted Quantitative Proposals.

VE Activity Cost: Sum of Task Order Award amount, PDT VE Cost, Contracting Cost, and DVO Cost. PDT VE Cost is only those costs for personnel who participate full time in a VE activity.

Participation for briefing meetings, review, re-design, etc. are not to be captured/reported as part of the VE Activity Cost.

Return on Investment (ROI): (Implemented Cost Avoidance – VE Activity Cost) ÷ VE Activity Cost.

The ROI should be displayed as a ratio (e.g., 4:1, 25:1, 150:1, etc.).

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 16

2.4.7. Certification Statement

The intent of the certification statement is to validate compliance with the USACE Value Standard and SAVE International® requirements. An additional function of the certification statement, when being applied to a programmatic study, is to indicate if the Study/Report has been permitted for future use in a Scan or Bridge strategy. If the report does not contain the appropriate signatures, it is not allowed to be used in the future. Example certification statements are provided below.

Please note that statement C is only required when a Programmatic Study is conducted.

A. The undersigned Certified Value Specialist (CVS®) facilitator (along with any participating co-facilitators) attests that the Value Study documented by this report meets the USACE Value Standard and that the Value Study was facilitated in accordance with the SAVE International® Standards of Conduct.

[Facilitator Signature] [Co-Facilitator Signature] CVS® No. [###] VMA/CVS® No. [###] Facilitator Co-Facilitator

B. As the District Value Officer, I attest that the Value Study documented by this report was executed in accordance with the USACE Value Standard. I have validated the Value Study using the Standard Evaluation Tool; uploaded it to VERS; and shared it with the Certified Value Specialist® (CVS®) facilitator.

[DVO Signature] VQR No. [###] District Value Officer

C. The Programmatic Study documented by this Value Study Report has been validated by the undersigned member of the Office of Value Expertise (Ovx) as meeting the USACE Value Standard and is authorized for application through bridging.

[Ovx Member Signature] VQR No. [###] Office of Value Expertise

Signed Certification Statements should be included as the last page in every Final Value Study Report.

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 17

3. REPORT DEVELOPMENT AND DISTRIBUTION

3.1. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

Roles and responsibilities are similar across Districts, with minor differences to fit local organizational structures and processes. In general, report development and distribution falls between the CVS® Team Leader, District Value Officer, and Project Manager. Report distribution responsibilities should be determined on a case-by-case basis and be clearly communicated to all involved parties.

Involvement in each value study will be different, based on complexity and interest in the project.

In some cases, internal or external stakeholders will participate. Below are a few examples to consider:

3.1.1. Internal Stakeholders:

• Operations

• Environmental

• Historical Preservation

• Planning

• Real Estate

• Contracting

3.1.2. External Stakeholders:

• Sponsor

• Customer

• User

The table below provides general guidance on who should read what section of the value study report. This information may be communicated as the DVO sees fit.

Report Section CVS DVO PM Technical

Team Internal

Stakeholders External

Stakeholders

Executive Summary P R R R R R

Value Study Results & Proposals P R S R S S

Value Study Documentation (Appendices) P R O O O O

P = Prepare R = Read thoroughly S = Skim O = Optional

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 18

3.2. QA/QC PROCESS

The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) process is vital to ensuring data within the report is accurate and consistent. It also plays a role in legitimizing the Value Program. If data is found to be inaccurate and did not go through a QA/QC process, it could lead to a negative impression of the USACE Value Program.

In an effort to expedite the review of the value study report, the following table provides guidance on the sections for which individuals should provide quality review feedback. Please note that this table can be expanded to match the complexity of the project.

Report Section CVS DVO PM Technical

Team Internal

Stakeholders External

Stakeholders

Cover QC QA QA

Executive Summary QC QA QA QA QA QA

Value Study Results & Proposals

QC QA QA QA QA QA

Value Study Documentation (Appendices)

QC QA

3.3. REPORT DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS

• Tell the story of the value study effort and the results.

• Be concise.

• Focus on value beyond cost avoidance when possible.

• Do not include the CVS® firm’s logo beyond the cover page.

• Do not include the “History of the Value Methodology” in the report.

• Do not include the in-brief, mid-point, or out-brief presentation slides in the report.

• Do not include copies of other supporting project documents – just include references.

• Avoid adding “duplicate” information (i.e., redundant tables, figures, etc.).

• Avoid “boilerplate” information – the intent is to capture the unique nature of the value study effort, and the gratuitous use of superfluous language should be avoided.

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 19

4. REPORT FORMATTING

Decision-makers and stakeholders are more likely to trust the content in the value study report if it is presented in a clear, concise, and consistent format.

The format of the value study report should do the following:

• Promote readability

• Provide a clear and consistent framework for the report

• Enable the reader to navigate the report and locate specific information quickly

4.1. FONT AND STYLE

Use commonly available fonts that are easy to read on a screen as well as on the printed page (e.g., Arial, Calibri).

Body text should be large enough to be read easily (e.g., 11- or 12-point type).

Use bold and italics sparingly to call the reader’s attention to items in the text.

Use headers and footers to direct the reader and identify the section of the report.

Use a distinct style for each heading (Level 1, 2, 3, etc.), and use headings consistently throughout the report. Ensure the most prominent headings appear in the TOC. (See Table of Contents for more information.)

4.2. DOCUMENT FUNCTIONALITY

4.2.1. Page Numbering

The report should include page numbering as described in the Table of Contents section. Report pagination should be accurate and consistent from one section to the next, clearly marked in the header or footer. All page numbers within the body of the report should align correctly with the page numbers listed in the TOC.

4.2.2. Bookmarks and Hyperlinks

The PDF report should contain Bookmarks aligned to each major section of the report, as shown in the TOC. The PDF should contain hyperlinks connecting each major section in the TOC with its location in the document. This is completed in the final stages of deliverable preparation:

In the PDF TOC, highlight first section, right-click > Create Link > Invisible Rectangle and ‘Go to a page view’ > Next > Use bookmarks to jump or scroll to desired page > Set Link

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 20

4.2.3. PDF View settings

Updating the initial view enhances the usability and the reader’s first impression of the report.

PDF > File > Properties > Initial View:

• Navigation Tab: Bookmarks panel and Page

• Page Layout: Single Page

• Magnification: Fit Page

With these document property settings, the bookmark panel opens automatically for easier navigation, the page zoom is set to fill the window, and each scroll of the mouse moves the report to the next page (vs. a slow scroll).

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 21

5. CHECKLISTS

Example Value Study Report Checklist

Report Section Checklist

Cover

Executive Summary

Value Study Results and Background

Value Proposals Section Overview

Table of Value Proposals

Recommended Value Proposals

Quality Review Comments

Individual Proposals

Value Study Overview – Introduction

Value Study Overview – Project Description

Value Study Overview – VM Process

Value Study Overview – Participants

Value Study Overview – Agenda

Project Analysis

Function Analysis

Idea List and Idea Evaluation

VERS Data

Certification Statement

USACE Value Study Report Guide – 14 December 2020 Page | 22

6. APPENDIX: VALUE STUDY EVALUATION TOOL

The performance of value studies must be measured and tracked to effectively manage the USACE Value Program. To support this objective, the USACE Value Engineering Evaluation Tool is used to assess every value study. The purpose of this evaluation is to provide feedback to those parties involved in the planning and execution of a value study.

The objective is to better identify those aspects of the workshop that may be affecting the desired outcomes from these workshops so adjustments can be made where necessary to improve these outcomes. This tool is used to grade not only the CVS® Team Leader and value team’s performance, but also the overall management, planning, study outcomes, and lessons learned from the workshop. The Evaluation Tool shall be completed prior to issuing of the final Value Study report. It will be completed as a separate, stand-alone document.

6.1. The Evaluation Tool should be filled out in a collaborative meeting setting to ensure a fair and accurate assessment of all aspects of the value study. This meeting should be attended by the DVO, CVS® Team Leader, and key representatives of the PDT, at a minimum.

6.2. The DVO is responsible for coordination of the Evaluation Tool completion meeting including communicating objectives, scheduling the meeting, and identifying the roles of participants involved. The DVO is ultimately the responsible party for entering the data into the tool and ensuring all components are addressed appropriately. The completed Evaluation Tool should be shared with all participants of the meeting and the CVS® Team Leader, as well as appropriate upward reporting chains.

6.3. Several inputs into the tool can be inserted prior to the Evaluation Tool meeting, but it is important for all participants to have the opportunity to offer feedback and assessment of the workshop. This should not be filled out by the DVO in a vacuum.

6.4. There are specific questions within the tool that require input from the CVS® Team Leader or the PDT, so collaboration is key to successfully completing this step. Everyone in this meeting is encouraged to offer lessons learned and identify ways to improve future value studies.

6.5. Please contact the DVO to obtain the latest version of the Evaluation Tool.