FY17-18 AFCAMP Playbook

Consolidated PDF Date of Playbook Consolidation: 14 August 2015 Note: Please check the Playbook on the CE Portal for the most updated version. Updates are communicated through the “Playbook Updates” list on the right hand side of each Playbook.

Go to Table of Contents 2 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Overview ............................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Summary of Key Changes (from FY 16-17 Business Rules) ................................................................................... 5

AFCAMP General Guidance and FY17-18 CTO/ETO Process ................................................................................. 7

Emergent Requirements ................................................................................................................................................. 22

Facilities Guidance .......................................................................................................................................................... 25

Transportation Networks and Airfield Pavements Guidance ............................................................................... 29

Utilities Guidance ............................................................................................................................................................. 36

Natural Infrastructure Guidance .................................................................................................................................. 45

Minor Construction Guidance ...................................................................................................................................... 48

Cost Savings Guidance .................................................................................................................................................. 49

Energy Guidance .............................................................................................................................................................. 52

Family Housing Guidance .............................................................................................................................................. 56

Refining Mission Dependency Index .......................................................................................................................... 59

UDI Adjustment Request and Approval Process ..................................................................................................... 61

Simplified Analysis of Alternatives Guidance .......................................................................................................... 63

Validation Documents SharePoint Upload Guidance ............................................................................................. 65

Troop Training Program Guidance .............................................................................................................................. 71

Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................................................... 73

Go to Table of Contents 3 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Overview

Executive Summary Deliverables Communications, Assessment, and Feedback

Executive Summary

This Playbook provides guidance to Installations, Major Commands (MAJCOMs), AFIMSC Detachments, Installation and Regional Support Teams (ISTs and RSTs), EQ Storefronts, and other stakeholders and requirement owners to plan and program Facilities, Transportation Networks/Airfield Pavements (TNAP), Utilities, Natural Infrastructure (NI), and Real Property requirements and opportunities for consideration in the Fiscal Year (FY) 17-18 Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP) project prioritization process. This document also explains how the centralized Facility Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) portfolio will be executed on an annual basis via the AFCEC Construction Tasking Order (CTO)/Environmental Tasking Order (ETO), incorporating the current execution business rules managed by AFCEC/CF governing project execution regardless of FY.

Desired Effects

The desired effect of the AFCAMP process: Air Force leaders at every level will have the ability to make informed investment decisions within a common risk framework to apply resources within their control across varying and often conflicting types of work, programs, mission sets, and goals.

The desired effect of the CTO/ETO process: The CTO/ETO will pull the thread through every step of the AFCAMP/Integrated Priority List (IPL) process, from development to execution, and through every organization involved, to create a deliberate and repeatable execution plan for the centralized program.

Targeting: Risk to Mission, Risk to Airmen

The key to achieving these desired effects is the ability to execute a viable, sustainable, life-cycle asset management process that begins at the installation level and clearly defines mission requirements within a common and stable risk framework. The Air Force must budget for and fund only what is needed based on leadership risk tolerance – no more, no less. To simply measure and communicate risk, the asset management, budget planning, and investment prioritization processes will utilize a universally accepted model in which Risk is a function of the Probability of something occurring and the Consequence if it does occur.

Deliverables

2 July 15– AFCEC will publish Business Rules

13 Nov 15- Bases will submit BCAMPs to AFCEC and their MAJCOMs and AFIMSC Detachments

22 Jan 16- AFCEC provides project lists to MAJCOMs (copying AFIMSC Detachments) for prioritization

12 Feb 16– MAJCOMs (with AFIMSC Detachment assistance) or NI requirement owners submit MAJCOM priorities() and NI supporting documents to AFCEC

13 Apr 16– AFCEC will coordinate AFCAMP/IPL for approval

Note that with the standup of AFIMSC, changes to approval processes which have not yet been established may drive

changes to the above dates and other dates contained in these Business Rules to permit the goal of IPL approval by

mid-April, 2015 and CTO Issuance immediately thereafter.

Communication, Assessment, and Feedback

AFCEC will execute a synchronized communication initiative to ensure all stakeholders understand the asset management and prioritization process and can provide feedback for improvement. Please monitor the following sources for information on this process:

Playbook Updates is located on the upper right hand column of the AFCAMP Playbook visible on every page. Each time there is any update affecting scoring or other significant items, the update is shown here.

Go to Table of Contents 4 | P a g e

Recommend subscribing to updates using the “Subscribe to Updates” button on the right hand side of the Playbook, which will allow users to be automatically notified of business rules changes based on criteria each user selects.

Asset Visibility SharePoint Site (BUILDER Info): https://cs3.eis.af.mil/sites/OO-EN-CE-A6/24048/facilityconditionasset/BUILDER/default.aspx

AFCEC/CP Milbook (Collaboration): https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/afcec-planni

Military Family Housing (MFH) SharePoint Site (MFH Info): https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/MFHPlanning/SitePages/Home.aspx

Environmental Quality (EQ) Planning Programming Budget and Execution (PPBE) Playbook https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/edash/Web%20Part%20Pages%20%20Program%20Pages/Environmental/Environmental%

20Quality%20(EQ)%20Planning%20Programming%20Budgeting%20and%20Execution.aspx

EQ PPBE Workspace https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/edash-workspaces/eqppbe/SitePages/Home.aspx

Go to Table of Contents 5 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Summary of Key Changes (from FY 16-17 Business Rules)

1.A MANPOWER REALIGNMENT AT MAJCOM A4 STAFF AND STANDUP OF AFIMSC

With the realignment of MAJCOM A4 Staff and the standup of the Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC) along with its numerous detachments (AFIMSC Det), AFCAMP processes need to be adjusted. MAJCOM staff is no longer sufficient to accomplish a thorough vetting of requirements, although a limited examination of requirements is inevitable as MAJCOM retained staff and/or the associated IMSC detachment develops project priorities for projects within their purview. In their place, bases will increasingly need to independently validate their own data as discussed in the paragraph below. To assist in that process, AFCEC will develop enhanced anomaly reports and host webinars to discuss anomalies and corrective actions. This will involve some risk, particularly for the bases. To mitigate this risk, BCAMP submissions will need to be made both to the MAJCOMs and AFCEC simultaneously, and at a slightly earlier date, to allow more time for validation and anomaly checks to occur prior to MAJCOM staffing for project prioritization. In addition, many roles, responsibilities, and touch points with the installations, AFCEC, HQ AFIMSC, AFIMSC Detachments, and retained MAJCOM Engineers are subject to on-going BPRs and transformational efforts. Expect clarifications and additional guidance as these efforts continue along with the filling of positions within AFIMSC and its detachments.

1.B EMPHASIS ON BASE VALIDATION OF DRAFT IPL AND LOCAL EXECUTION CAPABILITY

These business rules emphasize the role of the bases in validating the accuracy of the draft IPLs and their ability to locally execute projects identified for local execution as the IPL is being finalized for approval. This key coordination at base level will be needed to ensure only valid, executable projects are part of the CTO/ETO and that execution resources are not “overloaded” resulting in poor execution rates.

1.C REMOVAL OF THE $5M MINIMUM FOR SUSTAINMENT REQUIREMENTS

With the realignment of sustainment funding from the MAJCOMs to AFIMSC starting in FY16, the $5M lower limit for consideration of sustainment requirements for placement on the IPL is being removed. Bases and MAJCOMs may submit all projects which could be funded using the centralized funding which AFCEC manages for the AFCAMP program, regardless of cost, and all must have a base priority assigned. There is no longer a lower cost threshold. MAJCOM priorities will also be assigned as part of the AFCAMP process. If the number of MAJCOM priorities is adjusted, the adjustment will be based on significant changes in the amount of centralized funding, which has not yet been determined.

1.D BEGIN PLANNING NOW FOR DESIGN REQUIRMENTS FOR PROJECTS >$5.0M FOR FY18 AND FY19

Design requirements for FY18/19 for projects with a Programmed Amount >$5.0M must have a parametric cost estimate, an AF Facility Project Smart Start Tool, a project approval document (draft DD Form 1391 if over $7.5M) and a planning charrette report completed before the MCAMP submission date (12 Feb 2016). This includes Design Build as well as Design Bid Build projects. Resources are being made available to help bases accomplish those requirements if needed, but bases must act now to request those resources to meet the MCAMP deadline. FY17 projects >$5.0M should already have accomplished those requirements. See paragraph 2.C.7.4 for more details.

1.E INCORPORATION OF MILITARY FAMILY HOUSING (MFH) REQUIREMENTS

This cycle marks the first where MFH requirements, a sub-AMP of facilities, are fully incorporated into the AFCAMP process. Due to the separate MFH funding appropriation, family housing requirements will not compete against O&M requirements for funding or funding authority. However, family housing requirements will be prioritized using a quantitative scoring model. Due to the separate funding appropriation, execution of MFH requirements will remain within the purview of HQ A4CFH in lieu of aligning to the Weaponeering and Construction Tasking Order process outlined below.

1.F TRIRIGA

Although TRIRIGA is anticipated to be implemented in a handful of bases prior to the MCAMP deadline next year, and ACES changes suspended, final changes to TRIRIGA are only now being implemented. As a result, field names, screen shots, training, etc. necessary to develop business rules and a data management guide were not available for incorporation into the initial rollout of this year’s business rules. The Business Rules will be revised once there is more fidelity in the conversion from ACES-PM to TRIRIGA. AFCEC/CP will work directly with those bases that are scheduled to transition to TRIRIGA prior to the MCAMP. All bases should continue to populate ACES according to the current business rules and data will automatically be transferred to TRIRIGA at conversion.

Go to Table of Contents 6 | P a g e

1.G DEFINITIONS OF SUSTAINMENT AND RESTORATION AND MODERNIZATION

In Oct 14, AFI 32-1032 updated the definitions of sustainment, restoration, and modernization. However, FY15-16 project programming did not fully implement those changes. Proper identification of funding type is a programming responsibility and must be implemented. For details consult the AFI.

1.H SDSFIE 3.1 USE AND UTILITIES SMS

GeoBase Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment (SDSFIE) version 3.1 has not been deployed at most bases. Therefore, business rules for utilities projects remain largely unchanged. Once deployed, use of SDSFIE 3.1 will be the standard. Utilities Sustainment Management System (SMS) is under development to fully accept SDSFIE 3.1 data. The end goal is to utilize data entered by the bases in the GeoBase data model to facilitate the creation of unconstrained requirements that develop into opportunities (projects). The Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) COA Utilities Branch and the Corps of Engineers’ Civil Engineer Research Lab (CERL) are working together and anticipate beta testing the capabilities of the Utilities SMS in late 2016 or early 2017. Bases should continue to use their

installation's current GeoBase data model version until SDSFIE 3.1 is deployed.

Go to Table of Contents 7 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – AFCAMP General Guidance and FY17-18 CTO/ETO Process

CTO/ETO Overview Strategic Intent – Measuring and Communicating Risk Targeting – Project Prioritization Weaponeering – Construction Method, Execution Agent and Contract Vehicle CTO/ETO Development Execution

2.A. CTO/ETO Overview – The Construction Tasking Order (CTO)/Environmental Tasking Order (ETO) process was developed to closely mimic the Air Tasking Order (ATO) process already established and successfully executed in the Area of Responsibility (AOR). Not only does the process illustrate the lifecycle of a requirement from programming through execution, but it also explains the process in terms that Air Force senior leaders are familiar with.

2.A.1. Desired Effects

2.A.1.1. Improved Communication – Requirement execution is not a new concept. Stakeholders have been successfully executing requirements for years at the installation. A key lynchpin to their success is the relationship between the engineering, contracting, and finance teams at those locations. This same relationship must be duplicated at higher levels for the centralized program to succeed. Improved communication at all levels is integral to developing those relationships.

2.A.1.2. Repeatable Process – Some of the key advantages to centralization are standardization and consistency. Historically, Sustainment, Demolition, Dorms, Energy, etc. have all been separate programs that were prioritized and executed according to their own rules. Under centralization, a large majority of the CE programs have been integrated and are prioritized on a single list. The CTO/ETO process will put the final touches on the integration of various programs, ensuring that we have a standard and repeatable process for executing all requirements.

2.A.1.3. Equipped for Success – Each stakeholder involved in the execution process needs to be armed with the tools necessary to succeed. That means installations and other requirement owners need authority to advertise and get their projects moving on the front end as well as clear expectations regarding the timing of funding and award on the back end. If equipped with these tools as soon as the IPL is published, they are more than capable of taking care of the rest.

2.A.2. CTO Composition – Just like an ATO there are six major phases in the development of the CTO/ETO:

Figure 1: Construction Tasking Order (CTO/ETO) Process

Go to Table of Contents 8 | P a g e

2.A.2.1. Strategic Intent – AFCEC, with guidance from CE Senior Leaders, establishes the objectives of the built and natural (NI-Environmental Quality) centralized infrastructure investment program and builds or refines the AFCAMP scoring model and prioritization process accordingly. Strategic guidance is pushed to the MAJCOMs, AFIMSC Detachments, installations, and NI requirement owners in the Business Rules.

2.A.2.2. Targeting – Bases, MAJCOMs, AFIMSC Detachments, and NI requirement owners identify requirements for centralized funding and formally submit them through their Base Comprehensive Asset Management Plans (BCAMP), MAJCOMs, AFIMSC Detachments and NI equivalents to AFCEC. Requirements are captured by AFCEC and provided to the MAJCOM (and associated AFIMSC Detachment) to obtain their Major Command Comprehensive Asset Management Plans (MCAMP) which captures MAJCOM priorities.. AFCEC pulls the ACES-PM data for all requirements and prioritizes them based on the current scoring models. For FY17-18, all requirements will be scored using three factors: Probability of Failure, Consequence of Failure, and Cost Savings, as they were last year. The prioritized list of requirements that results becomes the “target list” for the fiscal year in question, the IPL.

2.A.2.3. Weaponeering – Once the target list has been developed, the appropriate weapon must be applied to fulfill the requirement. In engineering terms, that refers to the most effective contract method, delivery method, and execution agent. An enterprise-wide view of all of the requirements will provide the opportunity to ensure the right execution method is applied to each and every requirement.

2.A.2.4. CTO and ETO Development – Timing is critical to a successful ATO. Some targets may have specific timing requirements, i.e. time of day, and others may be less constrained. If the top priority target in the AOR requires a night strike, the Air Operations Center (AOC) will not cease operations until nightfall. They will take advantage of daylight to hit more opportune targets, and then strike the top priority target at the appropriate time. The construction program is no different. Small requirements being executed via Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contracts may be executed before a multi-million dollar complex renovation, even if the renovation does have a higher priority. Factors like size, contract vehicle, and level of design will be used to establish Time on Target (ToT) dates for each built requirement, and the CZ corporate process will establish ToTs for NI requirements.

2.A.2.5. Execution – Once the CTO/ETO is developed and has been reviewed and coordinated with installations, MAJCOMs, and NI requirement owners, AFCEC will coordinate a tripartite memorandum signed by AFCEC/CL, SAF/AQC, and SAF/FMB to issue Authority to Advertise (ATAdv) to all requirements on the CTO/ETO. After receiving the memorandum, execution for built infrastructure requirements will be in the hands of engineers at the installations. Execution for NI projects is conducted by both the base and AFCEC requirement owners through central oversight by AFCEC/CZC. Close communication and coordination between key stakeholders in the process will be critical to ensure any issues are quickly addressed to mitigate negative impacts to acquisition and ToT dates.

2.A.2.6. Assessment – Plans are rarely executed exactly as written and adjustments are usually needed during execution in order to successfully meet objectives. The CTO/ETO process is no different. The CTO Working Group including environmental personnel will meet periodically throughout the fiscal year to address these issues as they arise. If a number of requirements are no longer required or are not executable, the CTO Working Group will identify requirements to take their place. Similarly, ToT dates may be adjusted if there are claims, protests, etc. A well-communicated, flexible, and transparent process is key to the successful execution of the centralized program.

2.B. Strategic Intent – Measuring and Communicating Risk

Go to Table of Contents 9 | P a g e

2.B.1. Overview – In this fiscal climate, the Air Force can no longer afford to set aside funding by program or for various special interest items. Limited dollars must be focused on the most important requirement, regardless of program. In FY17-18, every requirement in Sustainment, R&M, Demolition, Ranked Environmental Quality, Dormitory, and Energy programs will compete on a single list based on its own merit. Note that starting with these business rules there is no minimum cost for sustainment projects submitted/considered for funding, although it is expected that bases will use a plus-up of sustainment funding which is being provided in lieu of MAJCOM sustainment funding to meet some requirements. This could address requirements to keep good facilities good which are yet accommodated in the current model, small dollar requirements or emergent requirements. But by eliminating the cost minimums for projects on the IPL, bases have flexibility in how they can work to address their important requirements. MFH requirements, funded by a separate appropriation and on their own priority list, are now also being addressed in these business rules2.B.2. Single, 2 Year, Rolling IPL – In FY13 and FY14, AF Civil Engineers approved and executed separate IPLs for R&M, Sustainment, Energy, Dorms, Demolition and Environmental Quality. Each program utilized a unique scoring model and requirements were prioritized within the separate programs based on varying factors. While each program attempted to address requirements using asset management principles, individual stove pipes prevented senior leaders from comparing requirements across all programs and determining which requirement was truly the best investment.

2.B.2.1 Similar to FY15-16 and FY16-17, the FY17-18 AFCAMP will consist of one list that incorporates all O&M programs. Additionally, the IPL will span two years. Identifying all requirements for FY17 and FY18 will enable better planning, design, and contracting actions for long lead projects, seamless execution of end of year funds, and a smooth transition from one fiscal year to the next.

2.B.2.2 The MFH IPL will remain separate from O&M requirements due to its unique appropriation. However, the MFH scoring methodology incorporates risk based scoring to the same 210 point scale for consistency.

2.B.3. Measuring and Communicating Risk – The FY17-18 Business Rules will continue the use of a universally recognized risk model that evaluates the Probability of something occurring and the Consequence if it does occur. This widely accepted approach will enable Civil Engineers to simply measure, and more importantly, communicate Risk to Mission and Risk to Airmen.

2.B.3.1 This prioritization model uses engineering analyses to inform objective decisions. By leveraging fully implemented base level capabilities described in PAD 12-03 and the associated Programming Plan, Civil Engineers will be able to directly link Sustainment Management System (SMS) data and sustainability processes to funding and requirement identification for built infrastructure requirements. For NI (EQ) requirements, priority modeling consists of a combination of regulatory drivers, return on investment, risk, mission drivers, and stakeholder engagement aligning compliance, conservation, and pollution prevention projects within a CoF, PoF framework.

2.B.4. FY17-18 AFCAMP Timeline – The built infrastructure-related development of the FY17-18 AFCAMP will begin in July 2015 with the release of the FY17-18 Business Rules and Scoring Model. Any requirement that has never had authority to advertise (ATAdv) or for which ATAdv has already been withdrawn should be included in FY17-18 prioritization. Projects that were given ATAdv, but are not funded by end of year will only be carried over (guaranteed funding the beginning of the following year) if a Request For Funds (RFF) was submitted and funds were not available.

2.B.4.1 While developing and finalizing BCAMPs for built infrastructure projects, direct communication between Base Civil Engineers, Base Contracting Leadership, Installation Commanders, and MAJCOMs/AFIMSC Detachments is critical. AFCEC’s Geo Integration Office will prepare a Prospectus for each installation by mid-September and make them available on the CE Portal. The Prospectus will summarize the condition and risks of the installation’s infrastructure based on available data, contain fields for installation programmers to update based on the installation’s investment priorities, and serve as the Installation Commander’s mechanism to actively explain and justify the installation’s priorities and advocate for MAJCOM prioritization. At a minimum, this Prospectus must be briefed to and signed on behalf of the Installation Commander or Facility Board Chair before being submitted to AFCEC, AFIMSC Detachments and the MAJCOM with the BCAMP. Additional information on the Prospectus will be provided in an AFCEC webinar/Defense Collaboration Services (DCS) session shortly after Prospectus release.

Go to Table of Contents 10 | P a g e

2.B.4.2 Prior to receipt of BCAMPs, AFCEC will begin a process of validating ACES data which will be used for developing the IPL to determine if there are errors which will affect the upcoming IPL build. This will be done utilizing automated tools and AFCEC will provide feedback to the MAJCOMs, AFIMSC Detachments and Bases for their consideration and potential modification. This process will also include at least two rounds of validation and feedback after BCAMP submission and will likely include accounting/selected review of required Validation Documents before the MAJCOMs will be asked to determine priorities based on that data. MAJCOMs with AFIMSC Detachment assistance as appropriate will process inputs and consolidate them into a MAJCOM CC/CV-approved priority list. MAJCOMs and AFIMSC Detachments shall ensure all MAJCOM priorities are loaded in ACES by 12 Feb 16. After 12 Feb 16, projects claiming points, but missing required validation documents substantiating those points will have those points removed from their IPL score. For EQ projects, AFCEC/CZC completes the development of its 1 to n list.

2 B.4.3 AFCEC/CPAD will perform an ACES data pull immediately after 12 Feb 16. All built and natural infrastructure requirements will be scored and prioritized in accordance with the AF/A4C approved model. Meetings and formal coordination will be scheduled as necessary, with the ultimate goal of final approval of the FY17-18 AFCAMP by mid April 2016.

Figure 2: FY17-18 AFCAMP Timeline

2.B.4.4 The NI programming contribution to the CAMP starts much earlier because the EQ program uses one bottom-up programming effort to satisfy the November POM submission and the programming requirements for the IPL. Once the current year IPL is approved by the CE Board, AFCEC/CZC leads the effort to update the EQ Programming Guidance (consisting of the Standard Title List, EQ Scoring Model, and EQ Programming matrix) for the following programming cycle. Once the programming guidance updates are made, AFCEC/CZC publishes the EQ Programming Call Letter to requirement owners. Open Season for all FYDP+2 recurring and non-recurring projects occur June through August. AFCEC/CZ Subject Matter Experts perform Air Staff validation of projects during August and September and final data quality checks are performed in October in order for HAF to conduct the November POM submission.

2.B.4.5 The MFH programming contribution to the CAMP starts earlier in order to incorporate and capture in-cycle Exceed Threshold (ET) requirements for the November POM submission as captured in

Go to Table of Contents 11 | P a g e

the Family Housing section of these business rules. Documentation must also be provided for FY17 projects requiring ET authority ahead of the MCAMP deadline to feed the President’s Budget (PB).

2.C. Targeting – Project Prioritization Model

2.C.1. Model Overview – Each requirement submitted for funding through the FY17-18 AFCAMP will be evaluated and scored using a risk framework based on Probability and Consequence of Failure. The requirement’s Probability of Failure (PoF) and Consequence of Failure (CoF) will both be scored on a scale of 1 to 100. An additional 10 points will be available if cost savings associated with that requirement are identified. The maximum possible score for each requirement is 210 points.

Figure 3: Risk Matrix

2.C.1.1. Probability of Failure (PoF) – The PoF of a built infrastructure asset will be determined using that asset’s condition, compliance, and functionality. Installations will use SMS to conduct condition assessments and quantify the most objective, data-driven, consistent results used in centralized funding prioritization.

For natural infrastructure, PoF will be determined based on the regulatory implication of the requirement.

Model Factor AMP Score Equals Generated by Description

Probability of Failure

1-100 Points

Built Infrastructure

Facilities

(100 – Project CI) x 2

Max 100 Pts

BUILDER SMS

Project Condition Index (CI) is a cost weighted average of CIs for all elements (systems, sections, components) in the project scope

Built Infrastructure

Transportation and Pavements

(100 – Project CI) x 2

Max 100 Pts

PAVER SMS Project Condition Index (CI) is a cost weighted average of the Adjusted PCI for each pavement section in the project scope

Built Infrastructure

Utilities

(100 – Project CI) x 2

Max 100 Pts

SDSFIE Project Condition Index (CI) is a cost weighted average of CIs for each utility section or component in the project scope

Go to Table of Contents 12 | P a g e

Natural Infrastructure

Regulatory Implication Max 100 Pts

EQ Programming

Guide

Regulatory Implication assesses environmental/regulatory compliance; failure will result in regulatory violation

Table 1: Probability of Failure

2.C.1.2. Consequence of Failure (CoF) – Component scores for CoF of a built infrastructure asset will be based on the Mission Dependency Index (MDI) of the asset and the priority assigned to the requirement by the Requiring MAJCOM. For natural infrastructure, CoF will be based on regulatory implication (the mission implication of regulatory impact), mission degradation, environmental risk, and stakeholder interest.

2.C.1.2.1 Historically, MDI has not always been an accurate measure of an asset’s importance to the mission, even at the associate Category Code (CATCODE) level. Base level programmers are encouraged to address MDI discrepancies with AFCEC/CP through their MAJCOMs or their AFCEC Detachments if they see that there is an error. If adequate justification is provided, the MDI will be changed to a more appropriate value. These corrections must be made before BCAMPs are submitted. For more detailed guidance on MDI adjudication, please reference the MDI Refinement Process tab of this playbook.

2.C.1.2.2 A project which includes multiple assets with different MDIs for each asset should use the Weighted Average CI and MDI Calculator in the CAMP Playbook Toolbox to calculate a cost weighted average MDI, which allows the MDI for the project to be determined proportionally based on the relative costs of each portion of the project contained in the project as a whole.

2.C.1.2.3 Similar Work in Multiple Facilities: As stated in AFI 32-1032, paragraph 3.4 work in multiple facilities should not be combined in a single project. However, if the work is similar from facility to facility, is intended to be procured in one acquisition action, and the cost per facility is less than $250,000, then work in multiple facilities can be programmed under a single project. For threshold determination (in both programming and execution) tracking through the work’s life cycle, and auditability purposes, the programming text must clearly delineate the work in each facility.

2.C.1.2.4 For Military Family Housing projects involving housing units, the MDI score of 35 will not be used to calculate the 60% portion of the CoF score. The MDI portion of the CoF score be based on factors associated with project scope and HQ A4CFH prioritization. See housing sub-AMP business rules for details.

2.C.1.2.5 MAJCOM priority will remain a driving factor in determining a built infrastructure requirement’s importance to the mission and the consequence of failure associated with a facility or system. Unit, Installation, AFIMSC Detachment,and MAJCOM Commander perspectives are critical to providing “ground truth” regarding the impact of each requirement or project. Although no score will be associated with priorities assigned at the installation level, submittals and signed Installation and/or Tenant Prospectuses will be the starting point for MAJCOM prioritization.

Model Factor AMP Score Equals Generated by Description

Consequence of Failure

1-100 Points

Built Infrastructure MDI x 0.6 ACES-RP Mission Dependency Index

(MDI) Business rules will allow for case-by-case fixes within AFCAMP process

MAJCOM

Priority Points x 0.4

N/A MAJCOM Priority Points will be weighted by PRV. #1 priority will receive 100 pts. Points decrease proportionally based on the number of MAJCOM priorities.

Natural Infrastructure

Regulatory Mission Implication

EQ Programming

Regulatory Mission Implication assesses the

Go to Table of Contents 13 | P a g e

(70%) Guide mission consequences of failure to comply with environmental/regulatory standards

Mission Degradation

(15%)

EQ Programming

Guide

Mission Degradation assesses potential loss of mission capability

Environmental Risk (10%)

EQ Programming

Guide

Environmental Risk assesses occurrence likelihood (unlikely, seldom, occasional, likely, or frequent)

Stakeholder Interest

(5%)

EQ Programming

Guide

Stakeholder Interest measures potential public reaction or legal action that may impact the local mission

Table 2: Consequence of Failure

2.C.1.2.6 For Built Infrastructure (BI) requirements, each MAJCOM is assigned a fixed number of priorities proportionally based on the Plant Replacement Value of Real Property administered by that MAJCOM. For the first two cycles of the business rules, AFMC (with the largest PRV) was given 100 priorities with other MAJCOMs given proportionally less priorities based on their respective PRVs. The smallest MAJCOMs, (USAFA, AFDW, AFSOC) were given 10 priorities although the proportional amount would have been less. Based on this methodology a total of 524 priorities were assigned across all MAJCOMs. MAJCOM Priority Points for Built Infrastructure (BI) requirements in the risk-based model are assigned to requirements based on the priority assigned by that MAJCOM until the maximum number of priorities for that MAJCOM is reached, after which no priority points are given. The amount of points given for each MAJCOM priority begins at 100 points for the first priority (score is 100 X 0.4), and is decremented equally for each additional priority until the maximum number of priorities for that MAJCOM is reached. Although no points are given beyond that point, MAJCOMs should enter a number (lower in priority...ie a larger number…than the last priority) in ACES in the MAJCOM Priority field to demonstrate that projects are valid projects for consideration in the IPL. Projects that are missing a value in the MAJCOM Priority field, or have a priority of 0 or 999 will be considered to be withdrawn from current IPL consideration.

2.C.1.2.7 Based on an expected increase in centralized funding, the overall number of priorities will increase in the FY17/18 IPL. This will ensure MAJCOM priority continues to influence IPL prioritization throughout the entire expected funding amount. MAJCOM allocation will also be adjusted based on changes in the PRV and realignment of installations from AFMC and ACC to AFGSC. The exact proposed allotment of priorities to each MAJCOM will be determined after the analysis of the aforementioned factors has concluded in the two months following final Business Rules release.

2.C.1.2.8 MFH funded projects will utilize a separate MAJCOM prioritization (1-N) from the built infrastructure priorities described in the prior paragraph.

2.C.1.2.9 Natural Infrastructure projects that are Basic Operating Requirements (BOR) will be given the maximum score. Natural Infrastructure projects will be given effective regulatory score to capture the mission consequence of failure to comply with regulations from different levels (Federal/State Law, Executive Orders, DoDIs, AFI’s etc), described in detail in the Natural Infrastructure section. Project score will be based on the effective regulatory score.

2.C.1.3. Cost Savings – A successful investment strategy uses risk to prioritize investments and balance funding gaps. Applying a Business Case Analysis (BCA) to resourcing decisions can help leadership identify an ‘optimal’ time for investment by considering risk as an opportunity to reduce cost, improve service, etc. Though not ideal, affordability issues often drive leadership to prioritize which works to defer. This model works toward incorporating BCA by considering return on investment. As the model matures, the intent is to improve how BCA influences investment decisions.

Go to Table of Contents 14 | P a g e

2.C.1.3.1 In the past, return on investment and savings were only considered in scoring requirements for energy, demolition, and environmental quality. However, the Air Force must identify all opportunities to reduce costs, not just the obvious ones. For example, replacing a 25 year old chiller with a new model that is more efficient will save money by reducing utility costs, but it may also save money by eliminating corrective maintenance. Incorporating life-cycle cost savings into every requirement will help capture this data. Project savings will be applied using a two pronged-approach:

2.C.1.3.2 Savings for Risk-Based Requirements – Risk will continue to be the primary driver, but requirements that result in quantifiable cost savings will also receive a bonus of up to 10 points in addition to the 200 point risk-based score. Note: Calculating the Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) will not be mandatory for every requirement. Bases can choose whether or not they want to pursue savings points. If claiming points for savings, supporting documentation must be submitted in accordance with Validation Documents which are accessible by MAJCOMs, AFIMSC Detachments, and AFCEC.

2.C.1.3.3 Savings Only Requirements – Many efficient savings opportunities have nothing to do with risk, but are still wise business decisions. Energy savings, demolition, and other savings opportunities will be scored using the standard SIR methodology, with the expectation that any requirement with an SIR greater than 1.0 will be considered for funding as Savings Only requirement. Energy projects, defined as savings projects which derive at least 35% of their savings from reduced energy usage (vs. O&M savings), will most likely compete in this manner. AFCEC will group requirements with similar SIRs and strategically place those groups in the draft IPL for consideration and approval by CE Board leadership.

2.C.1.3.4 Saving Only Requirements also occur in the NI program. Savings Only NI projects can often be projects associated with (but are not limited to) an enforcement action, Pollution Prevention (P2) Investment projects, or projects associated with an installation EMS significant aspects. The EQ ROI Calculator automatically computes a standard SIR score when it computes ROI, consistent with the EQ Scoring Model. EQ requirement owners can seek help from AFCEC/CZCP if assistance is needed using the EQ Return on Investment (ROI) calculator. The ROI Calculator and supporting training materials are found on eDASH at the EQ PPBE Workspace.1

2.C.1.3.5 See the AFCAMP Playbook Cost Savings and Energy for additional details on calculating cost savings and required documentation.

1 https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/edash-

workspaces/eqppbe/Lists/FY16%20Draft%20Final%20Programming%20Guidance/AllItems.aspx

Model Factor AMP Score Equals Generated by

Description

Project Savings

1-10 Points

Built Infrastructure Cost Savings for Risk-based Projects

SIR X 10 where SIR > 1 = 10 Pts Max

Savings Calculator or BLCC

Capture all savings for requirement to calculate SIR.

Natural Infrastructure

Savings Factor EQ Scoring Model

Considers whether requirement is related to a significant aspect and project savings based on EQ return on investment

Grouped by SIR

Built Infrastructure

Cost Savings for Savings-Only

Projects SIR > 1.0

Grouped in Increments

Savings Calculator or BLCC

Projects will be grouped by SIR into objective line items (e.g. All Savings Opportunities with SIR >5) and subjectively placed in the IPL to align with AF Goals

Table 3: Cost Savings

Go to Table of Contents 15 | P a g e

2.C.2. Asset-Specific Calculations and Programming – For detailed guidance on how to score and program

specific requirements for consideration in the FY17-18 AFCAMP/IPL, reference the links on the left hand side of

this Playbook. Each link provides in depth instructions for calculating PoF, CoF, and SIR for each type of

requirement:

2.C.2.1. Facilities

2.C.2.2. Transportation Network and Airfield Pavements (TNAP)

2.C.2.3. Utilities

2.C.2.4. Natural Infrastructure

2.C.2.5. Minor Construction

2.C.2.6. Cost Savings

2.C.2.7. Family Housing

2.C.3. Projects Spanning Multiple Activities – In the event that a single requirement includes work from

several AMPs (i.e. a facility renovation with some pavement and utility work), a CI and MDI should be calculated

for each portion of the project according to the appropriate requirement type, and a cost weighted average should

be used to determine the final scores:

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝐼 =(𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝐼 𝑥 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡) + (𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐴𝑑𝑗𝑃𝐶𝐼 𝑥 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡) + (𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑈𝐶𝐼 𝑥 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡)

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑀𝐷𝐼 =(𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑀𝐷𝐼 𝑥 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡) + (𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑀𝐷𝐼 𝑥 𝑃𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡) + (𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑀𝐷𝐼 𝑥 𝑈𝑡𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡)

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

2.C.4. Additional AFCAMP Guidance – In addition to detailed scoring guidance, the CAMP Playbook also

addresses requirements and processes such as the Simplified Analysis of Alternatives (SAoA), Troop Training

Program development, and validation of energy projects and scoring data.

2.C.4.1. Simplified Analysis of Alternatives (SAoA) – For the FY17-18 AFCAMP, an SAoA will be

required for requirements meeting any of the following conditions:

SRM requirements with Programmed Amount (PA) greater than $5.0M

Minor construction requirements increasing square footage

Renovation/consolidation efforts driven by mission needs or change in facility functional purpose as shown in AFI 32-1032 Table 3.1.

(as opposed to degraded condition or cost savings)

2.C.4.1.1 Ideally, some sort of BCA is already being done at the installation level before pursuing these requirements; however the SAoA provides a standardized process to ensure all alternatives have been considered and the most economical solution that meets mission needs is selected. More detailed guidance on completing the SAoA can be found on the Simplified Analysis of Alternatives tab of this Playbook.

2.C.4.2. Validation Documents – Installation Prospectuses should be submitted as part of the BCAMP on 13 November, 2015 to establish base project priorities and justification statements for those priorities. All other validation documents including SAoA (if not required previously for planning funding), project savings calculations, and other required documents are due December 9, 2015. The location and instructions for uploading required documents is described in the Validation Documents section of this Playbook, This constitutes AFCEC’s requirement, although other submission requirements may be

Go to Table of Contents 16 | P a g e

imposed by the MAJCOM or related AFIMSC Detachments. For NI projects, ROI calculations are submitted for review and approval with cost justification uploads. AFCEC will begin verifying validation documents have been submitted after 9 December and will adjust scoring based on the presence or absence of documentation before providing projects to the MAJCOMs/AFIMSC Detachments for prioritization.

2.C.4.3. Energy – Projects competing for funding based on energy savings require additional validation documents and have some unique programming requirements. Detailed instructions for these requirements are provided on the Energy tab of this Playbook. Energy projects must offer an SIR >1.0 and derive 35% or more of its estimated life cycle financial savings directly from reduced energy consumption (vs. O&M savings). The projects will be reviewed and validated by AFCEC/CND for inclusion on the IPL and tracked to monitor the Air Force’s progress in meeting energy goals and mandates.

2.C.4.4. Organic Execution Capacity/Agents (RED HORSE & CTS) – The Air Force has devoted significant funding, personnel, and equipment to the development of unique Civil Engineer Squadrons capable of executing robust contingency engineering operations. When these units are not deployed, they build and maintain skills through the completion of annual Troop Training Projects (TTPs). These TTPs are essential to the sustainment of contingency construction assets such as RED HORSE and the Construction & Training Squadron (CTS), and can provide the added benefit of executing additional IPL requirements at a lower cost than standard execution agents. Reference the Troop Training Projects tab of this Playbook.

2.C.4.5. Beddown Requirements – Advocacy for funding for new mission beddown requirements will primarily be the responsibility of the various Core Functional Leads (CFLs) which should look first to the mission program driving the beddown, although SRM requirements complying with the business rules are not excluded from the IPL. Programming responsibility will remain at the installation.

2.C.5. Programming to Support a 2-yr IPL – For FY17-18 AFCAMP built infrastructure, gather all requirements for FY17 and FY18. Program all requirements with a fiscal year of FY17 unless they absolutely cannot be executed by the end of 3Q FY17 due to logistical or host nation coordination requirements, etc. Any project that cannot be executed by 3Q FY17 should be programmed for FY18. Projects programmed for FY17 will be prioritized for funding and execution in FY17. Projects programmed as FY18 will only be considered for design funds if they are required. A MAJCOM priority of 800 should be entered in the MAJCOM priority field and “D” as the design fund indicator, to indicate the FY18 project is a valid requirement and a valid design requirement for FY17, and thus should be considered for funding as part of the FY17-18 IPL. The result will be a single 1-n list for all FY17 requirements, and a second list of FY18 design requirements. A line will be established on the IPL which will represent the cutoff line for Authority to Advertise for that year’s IPL. Projects above that line will be passed on to Weaponeering discussed below, and projects below that line will not.

2.C.5.1 Coordination with Contracting Agent During IPL Build – As the IPL drafts are developed it is critical that base civil engineering coordinates execution capability with the contracting agent, particularly when the contracting agent is the on-base contracting squadron. This will ensure the totality of projects proposed for the IPL (including design) can be executed and should be given authority on the CTO. If contracting capability for any projects proposed for the IPL is insufficient to be executed in the FY proposed, those projects should be removed from the IPL, and an email to that effect provided immediately to AFCEC/CP Workflow.

2.C.6. Tenant Requirements -- Special consideration needs to be given to R&M requirements when tenant organizations are involved. If the tenant is driving a renovation, upgrade, or modernization effort to meet their specific mission needs, then the tenant’s parent MAJCOM should be entered in ACES-PM as the Requiring Command. Additionally, if R&M requirements for tenants at sister service installations or non-service locations exist, the tenant’s parent MAJCOM’s AFIMSC Detachment or the base designated by the MAJCOM is responsible for programming those requirements and uploading required information into ACES or TRIRIGA project databases as applicable. The requiring MAJCOM will continue to be responsible for prioritizing those requirements. If an upgrade or repair is not being driven by the tenant’s specific mission need, then the Host Command will also be the Requiring Command. Entering the correct Requiring Command in ACES-PM will map the requirement to the appropriate MAJCOM for prioritization. Please note that the Host Installation/Command retains all responsibility for programming and prioritizing sustainment maintenance and repair requirements.

Go to Table of Contents 17 | P a g e

2.C.7. Design Funds and Advance Planning

2.C.7.1. FY17 Design Funds – ATAdv for some designs supporting FY17 requirements was issued in April 2015 based on the approved FY16-17 IPL and CTO. Once the FY16 funding line was established, a second line was drawn to determine which projects/requirements are likely to be funded in FY17 based on technical score. These requirements will receive design funds in FY15 EOY or FY16. When the FY17 IPL is built, if any requirement above the fund line still requires design funds, it will receive ATAdv for design shortly after IPL approval. Projects that require design funds must be programmed accordingly in the ACES-PM Design tab. Enter Fund Indicator “D,” Design FY of “2017,” and Estimated AE Costs.

2.C.7.2. FY18 Design Funds – Authority to Advertise for Design for FY18 projects (including concept designs, traditional design, and seed funds for RFP development) will be issued in April 2016 based on the approved FY17-18 IPL. Once the FY17 funding line has been established, a second line will be drawn to determine which projects/requirements are likely to be funded in FY18 based off of technical score. These requirements will receive design funds in EOY FY16 or FY17. Projects that require design funds must be programmed accordingly in the ACES-PM Design tab. Enter Fund Indicator “D,” Design FY of “2017,” Estimated AE Costs and a MAJCOM Priority of 800 (to verify the requirement should be considered). Any requirement that requires design funds in FY17 and CANNOT be executed until FY18 (including after 3d quarter of FY17) must be coded with Design FY of 2017 and Programmed Year of 2018.

2.C.7.3. FY19 Design Funds – In the event that a complex or large scope project requires design funds in FY17 in support of FY19 execution, program it accordingly. Enter 2019 as the programmed/execution year, and on the Design Tab, enter Fund Indicator “D,” Design FY of “2017,” Estimated AE Costs, and a MAJCOM Priority of 800. Technical score will be used to prioritize the requirement against remaining FY17 and FY18 requirements, so the requirement must have all scoring data entered in the Other Cost screen. Requirements with technical scores greater than 120 are typically included in the CTO Design Program.

2.C.7.4 New Planning Requirement for Large Projects – In order to avoid design execution delays, projects over $5.0M for FY18 and FY19 have added requirements this year to ensure projects are properly scoped and predesign is accomplished before design is funded. Before the MCAMP is submitted, projects of this size requesting design funds must have a parametric cost estimate, an AF Facility Project Smart Start Tool (see Specialized Toolbox), an approval document suitable for approval (DD Form 1391 if over $7.5M), and a Planning Charrette Report. These documents must be uploaded to the Validation Documents site prior to 12 Feb 2016 (Current MCAMP due date). The Specialized Toolbox provides an example of a contractor-produced charrette report, but the report requirement can be minimally satisfied by providing an internally produced product including at least section 2 of that document (note that floor plan and massing/elevation need only be done roughly so that reasonable parametric cost estimate can be accomplished). Planning funds are being made available to assist in accomplishing those requirements. In order to qualify for Planning Charrette Report funding, the project along with all appropriate CAMP scoring data must be loaded into ACES, an SAoA must be submitted and the technical score of the project must be equal to or greater than 40 points less than the CTO scoring cutoff for the last CTO, or 116.58 points. Requests for funding to accomplish Planning Charrette Reports should be communicated to your FSRM Program Management POC as assigned and listed on the FSRM Program Management website accessible via the FSRM Program Management link in the Specialized Toolbox at the right. Bases must plan ahead to meet these requirements, so if funds are necessary complete these planning requirements, request funding and begin this work well before the BCAMP deadline.

2.C.7.4.1 It is expected that FY17 projects of similar scope will already have these requirements accomplished.

2.C.7.4.2 Programmers are expected to use Asset Management Principals when determining scope and timing of projects to lower lifecycle cost of ownership while meeting mission requirements. When projects over $7.5M go up for SAF/IEE approval, the Air Force AMP Managers and Sub-AMP managers will review project scope, mission requirements, condition data, and other factors to determine if scope and timing of the project are effectively using asset management principals while meeting mission requirements. If their review fails to validate the scope, or identifies alternatives that result in significant lifecycle cost savings the AMP manager

Go to Table of Contents 18 | P a g e

may attach an alternate scope or project timing for the approving official to consider before approvals proceed. To limit changes and expedite approval, bases are encouraged to discuss proposed scopes of these large projects early with Air Force AMP and subAMP managers during the planning process.

2.C.8. Restoration and Modernization (R&M) and Sustainment Definitions – Although AFI 32-1032 was updated in Oct 2014, it appeared some projects may not have fully implemented those programming changes. Base programmers are reminded to use the updated definitions and descriptions of Maintenance (EEIC 521xx), Repair (Sustainment), (EEIC 524xx), Repair (Restoration or Modernization) (EEIC 522xx), Minor Construction (EEIC 529xx) contained in AFI31-1032, particularly paragraphs 4, 6.1, and the examples in Attachment 3 for projects submitted for the FY17 IPL.

2.C.9 NI (EQ) Program Policy and Definitions – All NI (EQ)-related program policies and definition are found in AFI 32-7001 and at the EQ PPBE eDASH Workspace website found in the Specialized Toolbox on the right hand side of this Playbook page.

2.C.10 MFH Program Policy and Definitions – All MFH related program policies and definitions are found in AFI 32-6002

2.C.11. Phased Projects – In some cases, operational and financial constraints necessitate the phasing of large projects over multiple years. In order to ensure phased projects are not penalized and that later phases remain competitive, even as condition of a facility or asset begins to improve as early phases are completed, all phases of the requirement will maintain the technical score of the original requirement when it was approved for funding. When scoring the project, the Condition Index (CI) and Probability of Failure (PoF) should take into account all work components, in all phases of the project, not just the first phase. MAJCOM/CVs may change the priority assigned to the project from year to year, but the guarantee of funding will not be in place if the priority is changed.

2.C.12. Air Force 2023 Capabilities – Historically, engineers have struggled to communicate the consequences and risks associated with decreased funding levels in terms that senior leaders understand. Rather than highlighting leaking roofs and failing infrastructure, engineers need to be able to convey what impact those problems have on our greater Air Force capabilities.

2.C.12.1 The Air Force 2023 Implementation Plan outlines the framework to achieve the Air Force’s goal of building “the most capable Air Force that we can afford against a high-end threat by 2023.” The plan also clearly expresses Air Force priorities and the capabilities required in the future security environment. Capabilities are prioritized within three separate categories: Global Power, Global Vigilance, and Global Reach.

2.C.12.2 In an attempt to better understand how the Air Force’s infrastructure investments support mission capabilities, this year’s AFCAMP process will tie each requirement on the IPL to the AF 2023 mission capability it supports. To align investments with the Air Force’s capabilities, programmers are asked to enter the operational wing that each requirement supports in ACES-PM on “Supplemental” tab, in the “Wing Number” field. In the event that a requirement equally supports multiple wings, identify the wing with the most critical Air Force 2023 capability (see spreadsheet in AFCAMP Playbook Toolbox for help determining the AF 2023 capability supported by each wing).

2.C.12.3 Additional guidance regarding capturing AF 2023 capabilities in ACES-PM is provided in the ACES-PM Data Management Guide. Note: AF 2023 capability assigned will not impact requirement score or prioritization. For FY17-18 this is purely informational.

2.D. Weaponeering – Selecting a Construction Method, Execution Agent, and Contract Vehicle

2.D.1. Overview – After the first draft IPL is created, the AFCEC CTO Working Group (which includes environmental) will convene to begin the Weaponeering process. Installation level ACES-PM data will be the starting point of the discussion, with the overall goal of this process being to let the nature of the requirement drive the method in which it is executed so that simple projects can be executed quickly, while more complex requirements are allotted more time for requirement development and design. It is critical for bases to be fully involved in this process before the IPL is finalized, so that base execution resources are not overloaded and the

Go to Table of Contents 19 | P a g e

IPL projects identified for local execution can be awarded on time. Failure to do so will directly result in inclusion of non-executable projects on the CTO/ETO, resulting in poor execution rates. For NI requirements, AFCEC/CZ convenes and develops a draft Spend Plan to address the weaponeering approach for requirements on the approved IPL. In general, the following guidelines will be used:

2.D.2. Construction Method (ACES-PM Project Delivery Method) for Built Infrastructure

2.D.2.1 Single-Discipline/Simple Scope – Minimal design needed, locally develop SOW or joint-measurement and work towards quick award and execution.

2.D.2.2 Design-Build – Recommended for simple, well-defined front end requirements less than $5M.

2.D.2.3 Design-Bid-Build – Recommended for complex projects, renovations of historic facilities, and requirements greater than $5M. Requirements that are greater than $5.0M will also require an SAoA.

2.D.3. Execution Agent (ACES- PM Agent) – Bases or requirement owners (Installation Support Teams (ISTs) and Regional Support Teams (RSTs) or EQ Storefronts) should input the desired execution agent in ACES-PM when completing their BCAMP/IPL submissions, in accordance with instructions in the ACES-PM Data Management Guide. Those inputs will be taken into consideration along with the following factors:

2.D.3.1 Optimize Installation Contracting Capability & Capacity – Base-level execution drives many efficiencies, but only if the capacity is available. Execution Agent inputs to ACES-PM and Draft CTO/ETO reviews will be critical to communicating what the installation can handle.

2.D.3.2 Optimize AFCEC/AFICA Capability & Capacity – AFCEC and AFICA already have resources in place with the capability and capacity to handle complex facility renovations and airfield related requirements. Typically more than 70% of NI (EQ) requirements are centrally executed by AFCEC/CZ on behalf of requirement owners.

2.D.3.3 Strategic Use of Non-AF Agents (USACE, NAVFAC, GSA, etc.) – For some requirements, there may be a compelling reason to use a non-AF Execution Agent. AFCEC will consider whether there is a resident office with advanced capabilities, previous involvement of the agent with a related project, a related MILCON program, Centers of Excellence, etc.

2.D.4. Contract Vehicle (ACES-PM Method of Contract) Take Advantage of Installation Tools – Maximize use of IDIQ & SABER and similar methods of execution if requirements are a good fit.

2.D.5 Take Advantage of AFCEC Tools – AFCEC can provide help with design via our in-house A&E, or project oversight by providing Title II services. AFCEC can also provide resources to help installations execute through the centralized Single Award Task Order Contract (SATOC) or Heavy Engineering, Repair, and Construction (HERC).

2.E. CTO/ETO Development

2.E.1 CTO Development – Based on the projects weaponeered in the prior section built infrastructure requirements will be populated into a CTO for coordination. The title, cost and the acquisition strategy will be listed for each project and should be determined in coordination with Base leadership (including base contracting if applicable) and AFCEC. ToT dates represent the date by which a Request For Funds (RFF) should be submitted to AFCEC. Installations, AFIMSC Detachments, and MAJCOMs will be provided the opportunity to review and adjust execution methods and agents prior to CTO publication. A tripartite agreement between SAF/FMB, SAF/AQC, and AFCEC/CL will provide funds assurance and Authority to Advertise in the jointly approved CTO, establishing the approved FSRM program. An appropriate Time on Target (ToT) date for each requirement will be requested by CF soon after the CTO is approved per later paragraphs.

2.E.2 ETO Development/Natural Infrastructure – Execution of NI (EQ) projects will follow the basic steps detailed in the EQ Playbook (https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/ceportal/CEPlaybooks/EQPPBE/Pages/default.aspx):

The approved and published ETO will serve as the Authority To Advertise (ATAdv) for all requirements.

Go to Table of Contents 20 | P a g e

2.E.3 CTO Development for Military Family Housing – Once the AFCAMP is approved, it establishes the MFH project requirements to be funded. HQ A4CFH will issue ATA in blocks based on funds availability.

2.F Execution

2.F.1. Built Infrastructure Execution– After the CTO is published, AFCEC/CF will define a process for establishing and submitting Time on Targets (ToTs) for each project on the CTO to facilitate built infrastructure execution. The ToT represents the date when a negotiated price is expected to trigger a Request For Funds (RFF) submission to AFCEC to support an immediate award upon distribution of funds. For all projects, the ToT date needs to be agreed upon by the local civil engineers and the contracting entity (base level contracting, AFICA, CoE, AFCEC, etc.)Execution of projects in the centralized FSRM program will follow basic steps detailed in the Business Process for Construction and Designs/Studies/Surveys – Planning through Closeout document (available in AFCAMP Playbook Toolbox). Execution is managed by AFCEC/CF and is described in detail in the FSRM Execution Business Rules accessible via the FSRM Program Management link in the Specialized Toolbox at the right. A summary of the primary steps are below, but the FSRM Execution Business Rules govern:

2.F.1.1. Update ACES and Submit Various Forms AFCEC/CFTS will input the date ATAdv is issued in ACES-PM in accordance with the ACES-PM Data Management Guide.

2.F.1.1.1 Project Managers (PMs) must update ACES-PM with the RFF dates when ToT is established and then again when the request occurs. Base PMs must also ensure a Contract Award milestone has been created in ACES-PM and updated with the Estimated Award date, IAW the ACES-PM Data Management Guide.

2.F.1.1.2 Base PMs must prepare a Corrective Action Plan (CAP) utilizing the CAP Request Form at the CFTS website above for each project that will not meet the ToT/RFF date. CAPs must be signed by both the Civil Engineer/CC or equivalent, and the Contracting/CC or equivalent. CAP definitions and deadlines:

Time on Target (ToT) – is defined as the date Bases should submit the completed RFF to AFCEC.

CAP Deadline – Bases that will not meet the ToT deadline must submit a CAP as soon as it is known that there will be a delay, but no later than the ToT date.

AFCEC CAP Approval – AFCEC will approve/disapprove the CAP within 1 week of receipt. Approved CAPs are accessible on the CFTS website.

Revised ToT – New ToT established by the approved CAP. Revised ToT within 30 days of original ToT will have funds assurance. Revised ToT beyond 30 days will not have funds assurance.

2.F.1.2. Supplemental ATAdv - If the Current Working Estimate (CWE) exceeds the Programmed Amount (PA), and the contracting officer requires it, the Base PM can request supplemental/subsequent ATAdv. Additional authority will be dependent on approval thresholds and the amounts of the increase as described in the FSRM Execution Business Rules (see FSRM Program Management link in Specialized Toolbox on the right). Note that the approval authority may direct re-scoping.

2.F.1.3. Request for Funds (RFF) – Due to the standup of AFIMSC, the process and roles/responsibilities for requesting funds must be reconfirmed. In any case, funds must be requested using appropriate forms and potentially project approval documentation which are described in the FSRM Execution Business Rules (see FSRM Program Management link). Those business rules also describe processes for designs, seed projects, and bid overages. AFCEC/CF centralized funds will be used to fund designs and bid overages for centralized funded projects. Change orders for centrally funded projects will be considered on a case by case basis, although Bases may need to fund based on funds type and factors driving the change.

2.F.1.3.1 Note that for Energy Projects with bids exceeding the approved PA, the RFF must be coordinated with AFCEC/CN to ensure the SIR is reevaluated. Projects placed on the CTO based on expected savings can have authority withdrawn based on loss of expected savings prior to project award.

Go to Table of Contents 21 | P a g e

2.F.1.4. Authority to Award – AFCEC/CF Branch/Division/Directorate Chiefs (as applicable) will sign the ATAwd for all projects. Projects requiring matching funds will require funds availability documents; See the FSRM Execution Business Rules for details (see FSRM Program Management link).

2.F.1.5. Contract Award – Base PMs must update ACES-PM upon contract award in accordance with checklist D-4, or E-4 of the ACES-PM Data Management Guide.

2.F.1.6. Construction/Study/Survey Complete or Design Complete – Base PMs must update ACES-PM during construction and design in accordance with checklist E-5 of the ACES-PM Data Management Guide.

2.F.1.7. Closeout – Base PMs must update financial closeouts for all projects in accordance with checklist E-6 of the ACES-PM Data Management Guide

2.F.1.8 Post-Award Cost Variations, Requests for Current Year Funding, Change Orders/AFCEC Requirements Using Expired Year Funding for Built Infrastructure Projects – See the FSRM Execution Business Rules which are accessible via the FSRM Program Management link.

2.F.2 Overview for Natural Infrastructure–

2.F.2.1 Basis Steps: Execution of NI (EQ) projects will follow the basic steps detailed in the EQ Playbook:

2.F.2.1.1 During the EQ Spend Plan development, AFCEC/CZCP will populate the TOT date in the EQ Spend Plan/ExPlan maintained on eDASH located in the Specialized Toolbox on the right hand side of the Playbook. For EQ projects, CAPs must only be prepared if the amount to be funded exceeds $500K.

2.F.2.1.2 In turn, EQ Requirement Owners must provide AFCEC/CZCP with a Release of Funds (ROF) request no later than 60 days prior to the published TOT date. Timeliness of ROFs are tracked on eDASH.

2.F.2.1.3 Failure to execute in accordance with the ETO may result in loss of funds.

2.F.2.2 NI Post-Award Cost Variation – If the current working estimate (CWE) exceeds the Programmed Amount (PA), the EQ Requirement Owner must request a Funding Line Adjustment per the steps provided in the PPBE Playbook .

2.F.3 Overview for Military Family Housing- HQ A4CFH will issue ATA in blocks based on funds availability and will track Timelines for RFFs. Failure to execute in accordance with AFCAMP targets may result in loss of funds.

Go to Table of Contents 22 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Emergent Requirements

3.A Emergent Requirements Overview – An emergent requirement is any critical and unforeseen requirement eligible for centralized funding that is identified after the approval of the Construction Tasking Order (CTO) but requires funding in the current fiscal year (FY) through the second quarter of the next FY (after which time a new CTO is issued). The intent of identifying these requirements is to provide a mechanism to address these critical requirements eligible for centralized funding but cannot wait until the creation of the next CTO. If the ToT is after the next CTO then the requirement should compete in the AFCAMP.

3.B Criteria for Consideration - In order for Emergent Requirement Requests (ERRs) to be considered they must meet several criteria. For a requirement to be considered critical, significant mission degradation and/or impact must be imminent if it is not funded as soon as possible. To be considered unforeseen, the requirement could not have been reasonably planned for and/or predicted given existing circumstances. Emergent requirements may include existing requirements that deteriorate unexpectedly to a point where execution cannot wait until the next CTO, or requirements whose execution cannot wait until the programmed year due to accelerated permit conditions or promulgated regulations. ERRs may not seek reimbursement for funds spent to execute requirements at the installation or MAJCOM level. All ERRs’ technical-score must fall within 40 points of the current year of execution’s projected funding line. Natural Infrastructure (NI) ERRs’ total score must fall above the current year of execution’s projected funding line. Additionally, requestors must provide a Time on Target date (as defined in Section 1.F.1.5. of the CAMP Business Rules) for the delivery of each requirement as part of the submission process.

General examples of ERRs that have been approved:

Investigation and removal of underground storage tank discovered to be leaking to ensure compliance w/state law (critical/unforeseen)

Restoration after utility system deficiency caused sudden flooding in HQ facility basement (critical/unforeseen)

Repair of discovered water main break under taxiway causing flooding on flight line and degrading hydrant loop system service (critical/unforeseen)

General Examples of Invalid ERRs:

Funding to add road pavement to scope of entry control point construction (not critical/unforeseen)

Funding for requirement that fell below current year funding line (not critical/unforeseen)

Funding for consolidation to support gained efficiencies (not critical/unforeseen)

3.B.1. Emergent Versus Emergency Requirements - Emergent requirements differ from “Emergency” (a.k.a. Storm Damage) requirements. Emergency requirements result from a natural disaster (e.g. Hurricane Katrina, tornadoes, earthquakes, forest fires, or other catastrophic “acts of God”) where SAF/FM will seek supplemental funding for the event. Expenditures will be tracked via a SAF/FM issued Emergency and Special Program (ESP) code. Installations will submit emergency requirements through their AFIMSC Det at their MAJCOMs via the Storm Damage Tracker for reimbursement directly from SAF/FM. Expenditures will be tracked via ESP code. Reimbursement will be requested through comptroller channels from SAF/FM. Emergency funds requests are not managed by AFCEC.

3.C.. Types of Emergent Requirements –

3.C.1 URGENT: Urgent requirements pose imminent danger to Life, Health and Safety (LHS) and/or immediate mission failure with no reasonable work around. Urgent requirements need approval (ATAdv) in 30 days or less and are requested through the established process on the ERR SharePoint. AFCEC will work with MAJCOM, AFIMSC Detachment, and Installation POCs to process these requirements as quickly as possible.

3.C.2 ROUTINE: Routine emergent requirements pose imminent mission impact, degradation, and/or violation of environmental laws and regulations. Routine emergent requirements do not require approval (ATAdv)

within 30 days and are requested through the established process on the ERR SharePoint.

3.D. Validation and Scoring – Requestors will verify requirements meet defined emergent criteria and are programmed in the appropriate Program Element Code (PEC) based on guidance provided in AFI 32-1032, Planning and Programming Appropriated Funded Maintenance, Repair, and Construction Projects; AFI 32-7001, Environmental Management; and AFI 32-6002 Family Housing Planning Programming Design and Construction. Requestors will also verify that the

Go to Table of Contents 23 | P a g e

requirement is correctly programmed in ACES-PM and that an accurate FY Time on Target date is provided. MAJCOM A4C staff may obtain assistance for meeting these requirements from their respective AFIMSC Detachment. Note that mission criticality validation should be determined by mission (MAJCOM) personnel, rather than AFIMSC Detachment staff.

3.D.1 All built infrastructure requirements will be scored and prioritized using the year of execution’s AFCAMP scoring model, and will be subjected to a thorough validation and review process prior to final approval for funding. AFCEC/CP will ensure information systems (BUILDER, ACES-PM, PAVER, etc.) have been properly updated to support the calculated score for requested requirements. For NI requirements. AFCEC/CZCP will work with AFCEC/CP to validate and score requirements. All emergent requirements will be scored based on three factors: Probability of Failure (PoF), Consequence of Failure (CoF), and Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR). A project’s technical score should have no MAJCOM priority points assigned when submitted for emergent funding consideration. If the project is approved as an emergent requirement, it will be awarded maximum MAJCOM priority points (40 points) as part of its total score. For NI requirements: MAJCOM priority points are not applicable. Approved NI emergent requirements will be inserted into the current year IPL based on their total score. This factor avoids the process of attempting to substitute or re-prioritize MAJCOM requirements after the IPL has been approved and is being executed. Furthermore, this factor acknowledges the weight of Installation and MAJCOM endorsement without automatically replacing or overriding significant unfunded requirements that were already on the IPL. An approved emergent requirement will then be inserted into the IPL based on the total score and tracked based on the approved ToT in accordance with Execution guidance provided in Section 1.F. of the CAMP business rules. Natural Infrastructure requirements will be identified by AFCEC/CZC and validated/scored jointly by AFCEC/CP and AFCEC/CZCP.

3.D.2 A requirement may be submitted based solely on its SIR if it meets the “unforeseen” criteria and must be awarded in the current fiscal year and will not available in future fiscal years. If the project can wait for the next AFCAMP cycle then it will not be approved as an emergent. Lost potential savings is not permissible justification. The SIR must be greater than or equal to the minimum SIR within the current year CTO savings wedge.

3.D.3 NI requirements do not use MAJCOM priority points for scoring. Approved NI emergent requirements will be inserted into the current year CTO based on their total CAMP model score. AFCEC/CZCP will work with AFCEC/CP to validate and score requirements.

3.E. Request and Approval Thresholds – Requests and approval thresholds are as specified in Table 3.1 Below

Note that the MAJCOM CV must request AFIMSC/IZ approval for any non-housing built infrastructure emergent requirement with an estimated cost in excess of $300K. AFCEC/CZ will formally request approval of NI emergent requirements >$300K from AFIMSC/IZ once validation/scoring is completed.

ERR Request and Approval Thresholds

Work Classification

Less than $300K Greater than $300K

Requestor Approver Requestor Approver

Sustainment (same for demo)

N/A N/A MAJCOM CV AFIMSC/IZ

Restoration & Modernization

MAJCOM A4C

AFCEC/CP MAJCOM CV AFIMSC/IZ

Natural Infrastructure

(Environmental Quality)

BCE AFCEC/CP AFCEC/CZ AFIMSC/IZ

Family Housing AFIMSC Det/CEH

AF/A4CFH

Table 3.1 ERR Request and Approval Thresholds

3.F Submittals

Go to Table of Contents 24 | P a g e

3.F.1 O&M (Non-Family Housing) ERR Submittal: In order for an O&M emergent requirement to be considered for funding, ERR must be submitted in accordance with the ERR Sharepoint located in the Specialized Toolbox on the right. This includes a Validation Worksheet and Memorandum signed by the appropriate authority as specified in Table 3.1. . For document templates and detailed submittal instructions please reference the ERR SharePoint page.

3.F.2 Family Housing Emergent Requirements Process– MFH emergent requirements are submitted, validated, managed, and reviewed separately than non-Family Housing requirements. HQ A4CFH retains authority to approve all Family Housing emergent requirements. Emergent requirements for Family Housing projects require a validation worksheet signed by the MAJCOM-associated IMSC Detachment Housing Manager submitted via the MFH Planning SharePoint site located here.

Go to Table of Contents 25 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Facilities Guidance

Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects Step 2: ACES-PM Guidelines and Calculating PoF, CoF, and SIR Step 3: Provide Data Validation Renovations/Consolidations Driven by Change in Function Repair Projects that Include Components Driven by Change in Function Supplementary Guidance

This step-by-step process provides guidance for consolidating facility requirements identified in the Activity Management Plan (AMP) into executable projects for the Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (CAMP). Failure to follow the instructions provided within this guidance may prevent requirements from being prioritized and funded as part of the Integrated Priority List (IPL)/Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP).

Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects

BUILDER SMS data should ideally confirm what AMP/Sub-AMP managers and craftsmen have already identified as the facilities or systems in the worst condition. AMP/Sub-AMP managers, working groups, and base programmers should work to prioritize facilities for complete assessments based upon existing BUILDER data and shop knowledge, with the overall goal of balancing reactive user requests with proactive programming. For Dormitory facilities, projects should follow guidance in the Dormitory Master Plan (DMP).

Step 2: ACES-PM Guidelines and Calculating PoF, CoF, and SIR

Program all projects as outlined in the Automated Civil Engineering System – Project Management (ACES-PM) Data Management Guide, which can be found in the Toolbox section on the right side of this Playbook on the Civil Engineering (CE) Portal. In addition to basic project information, several fields are required for Fiscal Year (FY) 17-18 Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP) Prioritization:

Project Description and Remarks

Clearly define the project scope and include detailed descriptions and justifications for each requirement in ACES-PM. In the Remarks section, include each work element that will be included in the scope of work, the Condition Index (CI) of that element, and the cost of repairing/replacing that element. Condition Index (CI) shall be from BUILDER SMS. Programmers should use common sense to determine what level of CI to use (component section [CSCI], component [BCCI], or system [SCI]). To simplify, programmers may copy this data straight from the Facilities Project Scoring Worksheet provided and paste it into the Remarks field of ACES-PM. To preserve formatting, do not add extra columns or spaces. For projects that include multiple facilities use project score sheet to calculate weighted CI, MDI and Costs. See the sample Worksheet below.

Table 1: Facilities Project Scoring Worksheet Example

CI and Probability of Failure (PoF)

Use the Air Force Civil Engineering Center (AFCEC)-provided Facilities Project Scoring Worksheet to calculate the cost-weighted average CI for all elements in the project scope. Enter the average CI and corresponding PoF score in the ACES-PM “Other Cost” screen. For reference, the equation used to calculate cost-weighted average CI is:

Weighted Average CI = (CI1 x Cost1) + (CI2 × Cost2) + …

Total Project Cost

Scoring Mission Dependency Index (MDI)

Facility Number Facility MDI UNIFORMAT Code Description CI Cost

10 85 D401002 Fire, S05 Fire Alarm Detectors, Temp (CSCI) 61 920.00$

10 85 B30 Roofing (SCI) 44 224,300.00$

Go to Table of Contents 26 | P a g e

Consequence of Failure (CoF) is equal to (MDI x 0.6) + (MAJCOM Priority Points x 0.4). Because Major Command (MAJCOM) priorities are not assigned until MAJCOM Comprehensive Asset Management Plans (MCAMP) are complete, the only data that must be programmed in ACES-PM is the MDI of the asset (or the cost-weighted average MDI if the project includes multiple assets). Use the Facilities Project Scoring Worksheet to calculate the cost-weighted average MDI and enter it in the ACES-PM Other Cost screen. For reference, the equation used to calculate the cost-weighted average MDI is:

Weighted Average MDI = (MDI1 × Cost1) + (MDI2 × Cost2) +…

Total Project Cost

Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR)

The basic equation for calculating a project’s SIR is:

SIR = Life Cycle Savings

Total Project Cost

A Project Savings Calculator is provided in the CAMP Toolbox, and more detailed information is provided on the Savings Calculation tab of the CAMP Playbook. Calculate the SIR for each project/requirement and enter it in the ACES-PM Other Cost screen.

NOTE: Savings Calculation Worksheet MUST be submitted for EACH project claiming SIR points on the IPL. Missing documentation will result in zero points being awarded for SIR.

The table below summarizes the ACES-PM fields, locations, and data sources for the CoF, PoF, MDI, and SIR metrics.

ACES-PM FIELD NAME

ACES-PM FIELD TAB SOURCE

CI AM_CONDITIONINDEX

OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s cost-weighted average CI. Value is 0 to 100 with no decimals.

PoF AM_PROBABILITYOFFAILURE

OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s PoF score in the “Amount” column. Value is 0 to 100 with no decimals, based on the cost-weighted average CI.

Scoring MDI

AM_SCORING_MDI OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s MDI or cost-weighted average MDI of all facilities/assets in the project scope. Value is 25 to 99 with no decimals.

SIR AM_SAVINGINVESTMENTRATIO

OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s SIR in the “Amount” column. Value is greater than 0 with up to 2 decimals.

Table 2: Summary Table of ACES-PM CAMP Metrics

Step 3: Provide Data Validation

Installations must provide required validation documents to MAJCOMs when Base Comprehensive Asset Management Plans (BCAMP) are submitted. This includes a copy of the Project Savings Calculator worksheet, if applicable, and any additional information requested by MAJCOMs. MAJCOMs are responsible for validating data input by the installations.

Go to Table of Contents 27 | P a g e

Renovations/Consolidations Driven by Change in Function

In some cases, requirements are driven by consolidation or mission driven change of facility use (change of function) rather than by deteriorated facility condition or cost savings. In these situations, BUILDER CI does not generally capture the true need as the CI measures deteriorated condition, not the functional state. For example, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) and electrical systems in an existing facility may be in good or fair condition, but may be inadequate to meet a new function or the needs of consolidated personnel. Change in function is not limited to conversion or change in functional purpose, as defined by paragraph 3.3.3.1 of AFI 32-1032.

To capture a more accurate PoF, renovations/consolidations driven by a change in function should assign an appropriate PoF score for the requirement, approved by the Facilities Board based on the table below. Enter the score in the appropriate PoF field in ACES and also document the justification for that score in the Remarks section of the text screen.

PoF Score Description

100 Pts Absolutely no workarounds are available and other options are more costly than the proposed action. (SAoA including evaluation of Status Quo option is required)

80 Pts Work around available; Mission will remain degraded

60 Pts Work around available; Mission not impacted. Not all UFC, AFIs, etc. met

40 Pts Nice to have, QoL

Table 3: PoF Score for Renovations/Consolidations Driven by Change in Function

Renovations/consolidations driven by a change in function will also be required to accomplish a Simplified Analysis of Alternatives (SAoA) to ensure all available alternatives were considered per SAoA guidance in the CAMP Playbook. These SAoAs must show how costs were determined. Once requirements have been validated and an approved memorandum has been submitted, requirements can be programmed with the PoF approved by the Facilities Board. The MDI programmed for the requirement should match the Category Code(s) (CATCODE) of the facility’s intended function. Applicable AFCAMP business rules should be utilized in determining the project’s SIR.

Note: Any requirement that is submitted without Facilities Board approval and an SAoA meeting the above requirements will be removed from the IPL.

Repair Projects that Include Components Driven by Change in Function

To calculate the PoF for a project that includes work driven by both poor condition and a change in function, utilize applicable CAMP guidance and BUILDER CI to calculate the PoF for components in poor condition, and the FB approval to calculate PoF for work components required for change in function. Use a cost-weighted average to calculate the PoF for the entire project:

Weighted Average PoF = (Condition Driven PoF x Cost) + (Consolidation Function PoF × Cost)

Total Project Cost

Supplementary Guidance

Ensure compliance with AFCAMP general guidance contained in AFCAMP Overview.

Assessing Noncompliant Items in BUILDER SMS: For project requirements identified to address/mitigate safety Risk Assessment Codes (RAC), Fire Safety Deficiencies Codes (FSDC), Environmental Compliance deficiencies (federal, state, local), AT/FP requirements, or AFI/UFC/DoDI non-compliance, use the BUILDER Direct Condition Assessment Matrix in the CAMP Toolbox to assign a direct condition rating in BUILDER SMS. Do not presume a Condition Index (CI). Enter the condition rating as indicated in the Matrix into BUILDER SMS to generate a CI. See notes on the BUILDER Direct Condition Assessment Matrix for use of the Matrix.

Additional Information Required for Demolition Projects: In order to track progress toward meeting AF goals, for demolition projects include the following information in the Programming Tab, Text Button, Remarks field of ACES-PM: Real Property Unique Identifier (RPUID), SF demolished, and then summarize total SF demolished, example as follows: RPUID123, 2,200SF; RPUID1234, 1,700SF; Total SF Demolished: 3,900SF

Go to Table of Contents 28 | P a g e

Additional Information Required for Consolidation Projects: In order to track demolition/new construction that will be accomplished as part of long with a consolidation project, include the following information in the Programming Tab, Text Button, Remarks field of ACES-PM for each facility involved: RPUID, SF Renovated, Additional SF Constructed, SF Demolished, SF Vacated. (Example: RPUID123, 2,500SF Renovated, 300SF Constructed; RPUID1234, 1,500SF Demolished; RPUID12345, 500SF Vacated.) If the vacated space is to be demolished under a companion project, put “to be demo’d under companion project (insert proj #)” after the “XXSF Vacated.” At the end of the list, put the totals of SF renovated, constructed, demolished, and vacated. (See example) EXAMPLE: REMARKS (ACES PM) RPUID123: 2,500SF Renovated, 300SF Constructed RPUID1234: 1,500SF Demolished RPUID12345: 1,000SF Demolished RPUID123456: 500SF Vacated (to be demo’d under companion project XXXX-123456) Total SF Renovated: 2,500SF Total SF Constructed: 300SF Total SF Demolished: 2,500SF Total SF Vacated: 500SF Additional Guidance for Projects that Construct New Square Footage: If a project builds new square footage (to included additional footage added to existing facilities), it is recommended that an equal or greater quantity of square footage be included for demolition, either as part of the primary project or as a companion project

Go to Table of Contents 29 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Transportation Networks and Airfield Pavements Guidance

Introduction Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects Step 2: ACES-PM Guidelines and Calculating PoF, CoF, and SIR Step 3: Provide Data Validation Supplementary Guidance

Pavements Bridges Signage Airfield and Roadway Markings Assets without CI Information or Assessment Plans

Introduction

This narrative provides guidance for consolidating requirements identified in the Activity Management Plan (AMP) into executable projects for the Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (CAMP). Failure to follow instructions provided within this guidance may prevent projects from receiving proper prioritization and funding as part of the Integrated Priority List (IPL)/Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP).

Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects

Develop projects for fiscal year (FY) 17-19 using data from Air Force Sustainment Management Systems (SMS) such as PAVER, BUILDER, and the Automated Civil Engineering System – Project Management (ACES-PM) as well as the interim utilities database and the installation’s bridge inspection database. Identify when work should be done using information from tools like the Pavement Repair Requirements and Prioritization document, available reports, shop and pavement engineer knowledge, as well as input from the base TNAP AMP manager. Note: First time users will need to request access to this document; access is usually granted within one to two business days.

Make every effort to avoid performing work too early (e.g., doing a pavement mill and overlay project too early wastes good pavement and scarce funds) or too late (e.g., doing an overlay too late can result in damage to the base course and result in a dramatically higher repair bill).

Ensure preventive maintenance (PM) and maintenance and repair work is being done at the appropriate time to optimize life cycle costs and delay the need for more costly repairs.

Step 2: ACES-PM Guidelines and Calculating PoF, CoF, and SIR

Use the Transportation Networks and Airfield Pavements (TNAP) Project Scoring Worksheet located in the Toolbox to calculate project scoring criteria and enter it into ACES-PM. Enter all other data fields as outlined in the ACES-PM Data Management Guide.

Project Description and Remarks

Provide a well-written description and justification in the ACES-PM Programming/Text section.

Adjusted Pavement Condition Index (Adj PCI) and Probability of Failure (PoF)

PoF is based on a scale of 1-100, with a high PoF assigned to assets in poor condition.

Pavements: When bases enter mission aircraft, foreign object damage (FOD) potential rating, structural index, and skid rating into the Pavement Repair Requirements and Prioritization document located in the Toolbox, Adj PCI values will automatically be calculated for each pavement section (or portion of a section) using the formula below. A project may be comprised of work on a portion of a section, on a whole section, or more than one section of pavement.

Go to Table of Contents 30 | P a g e

For projects that repair a portion of a section: Identify the sample units from the current AFCEC PCI report associated with the repair area and use that data to determine the adjusted PCI for the sample unit. If the sample unit(s) were not inspected in the AFCEC PCI, the base may score them using the process outlined in ETL 14-3. The remainder of the scoring process is the same as with multiple sections outlined below. Denote the sample units with section number, dash, sample unit number (e.g. R01A1-03 for section R01A1, sample unit three). Use the same sample unit schema generated in the last PCI survey; do not re-number the sample units to tailor them to the specific project. For runway work, use the FOD, SKID, and SI deductions assigned to the section in the last PCI report. Enter the data into the relevant fields in the TNAP Project Scoring Worksheet located in the Toolbox.

For projects with work on more than one section of pavement: Enter the Adj PCI for each section (or portion of a section) of the project into the TNAP Project Scoring Worksheet to calculate a cost-weighted average Adj PCI and POF for the entire project.

Adj PCI = PCI - DFOD - DSKID - DSI*

Weighted Average Adj PCI = (Adj PCI

1× Cost1) + (Adj PCI

2 × Cost2) +…

Total Project Cost

* See Supplementary Guidance below for information on DSKID and DSI (PAVEMENTS, Adj PCI and ACN/PCN paragraphs).

Airfield Lighting: Follow Utilities Guidance and Supplementary Guidance – Electrical for the electrical portion and lighting support structures. Follow Facilities Guidance for facilities housing airfield lighting assets. Airfield lighting includes secondary electrical service to the lighting vault and other airfield lighting assets, the lighting vault and other airfield lighting facilities, and airfield lighting distribution and control components within the facilities, dedicated standby and emergency power and switching for airfield lighting, the lighting distribution including manholes, ducts, conductors, and counterpoise/ grounding systems, lighting support structures, and lighting components.

Non-pavements: Enter condition data into the TNAP Project Scoring Worksheet as well as other data in accordance with worksheet instructions.

Consequence of Failure (CoF) and Mission Dependency Index (MDI)

CoF is equal to ([MDI x 0.6] + [MAJCOM Priority Points x 0.4]). Because Major Command (MAJCOM) priorities are not assigned until MAJCOM Comprehensive Asset Management Plans (MCAMP) are complete, the only COF-related data that must be programmed in ACES-PM is the cost-weighted average MDI. MDIs for airfield pavements are adjusted as shown in the table below. For projects with work on more than one section of pavement, enter the adjusted MDI. Use the TNAP Project Scoring Worksheet to calculate the Weighted Average MDI and enter it in the ACES-PM “Other Cost” screen. For reference, the equation used to calculate the weighted average MDI is provided below.

Weighted Avg. MDI = (MDI1 × Cost1) + (MDI2 × Cost2) +…

Total Project Cost

See Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-1041, Pavement Evaluation Program, pp 57-58 for more information on primary, secondary, and tertiary pavements.

For Airfield Lighting follow Consequence of Failure (CoF) and Mission Dependency Index (MDI) section in the Utilities Guidance.

SIR The basic equation for calculating a project’s Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) is:

Go to Table of Contents 31 | P a g e

SIR = Life Cycle Savings

Total Project Cost

A Project Savings Calculator is provided in the CAMP Toolbox, and more detailed information is provided on the Savings Calculation tab of the CAMP playbook. Calculate the SIR for each project/requirement and enter it in the ACES-PM Other Cost screen. NOTE: A Savings Calculation Worksheet MUST be submitted for EACH project claiming SIR points on the IPL. Missing documentation will result in zero points being awarded for SIR. The table below summarizes the ACES-PM fields, locations, and data sources for the CoF, PoF, MDI, and SIR metrics.

ACES-PM FIELD NAME

ACES-PM FIELD TAB SOURCE

PoF AM_PROBABILITYOFFAILURE

OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s PoF score in the “Amount” column. Value is 0 to 100 with no decimals, based on the weighted average Adj PCI of the project.

CI AM_CONDITIONINDEX

OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s weighted average Adj PCI. Value is 0 to 100 with no decimals.

Scoring MDI

AM_SCORING_MDI OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s MDI or cost-weighted average MDI of all facilities/assets in the project scope. Value is 25 to 99 with no decimals.

SIR AM_SAVINGINVESTMENTRATIO

OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s SIR in the “Amount” column. Value is greater than 0 with up to 2 decimals.

Table 2: Summary Table of ACES-PM CAMP Metrics

Step 3: Provide Data Validation

Installations must provide required validation documents to the Validation Documents site located under Additional Guidance when Base Comprehensive Asset Management Plans (BCAMP) are submitted. Required documents include a copy of the TNAP Project Scoring Worksheet, Cost Savings Calculator worksheet, if applicable, Simplified Analysis of Alternatives (SAoA) if applicable, DD Form 1391 for projects costing over $5M, and any additional information requested by MAJCOMs. In the event that a project includes work from several AMPs (i.e. a TNAP project with some utility work), calculate a cost weighted average CI and a cost weighted average MDI for each portion of the project according to the appropriate requirement type to determine the final scores using the “Weighted Average CI and MDI Calc – Multi Activity Projects” worksheet located in the General CAMP Toolbox. Upload this worksheet as well as a worksheet for each respective AMP affected by the project to the Validation Documents site located under Additional Guidance.

Supplementary Guidance

Ensure compliance with AFCAMP general guidance contained in the AFCAMP Overview.

Pavements PCI and PoF: PCI values are obtained via a pavement condition survey using American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) procedures. Since PCI levels decrease over time, adjustments are required to show the estimated PCI value in any given year. The Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) provides the estimated PCI values for FY17 and FY18 for airfield pavement sections based on using pavement deterioration formulas and environments at each location in the Pavement Repair Requirements and Prioritization document. For roads and parking areas, use PCI values reported in the latest PCI study. Adjusted PCI

Go to Table of Contents 32 | P a g e

Airfield pavement projects will be scored based on an Adj PCI, using the formula below:

Adj PCI = PCI – DFOD – DSKID - DSI Where DFOD is a numerical representation of the risk of FOD developing on airfield pavement, which would put aircraft at risk. The number comes from the Pavements Repair Requirements and Prioritization document link located in the TNAP Toolbox. DSKID is a Friction Index that reflects the skid/hydroplaning potential of a runway pavement. The number comes from the Pavements Repair Requirements and Prioritization document link located in the TNAP Toolbox. If the latest skid test is over 8 years old or if a skid test has not been done, use a value of zero for the deduction. DSI Deduction: The Structural Index (SI) deduction is based on the SI of the Critical Aircraft and the Aircraft Classification Number/Pavement Classification Number (ACN/PCN*) taken from the Pavements Repair Requirements and Prioritization document link located in the TNAP Toolbox. For ACN/PCN, if a pavement section was constructed or reconstructed recently, assume it is designed to handle the mission aircraft load, so PCN will equal the ACN of critical mission aircraft until the next structural evaluation. If a pavement section was omitted from the last structural evaluation and the pavement engineer believes that there is a structural deficiency and the section PCI is below the Critical PCI**, contact the AFCEC Tyndall Airfield Pavement Evaluation (APE) Team for a desktop analysis of the section. Otherwise assume ACN=PCN of critical mission aircraft until the next structural evaluation establishes a more accurate PCN. *ACN/PCN: AFI 32-1041, Chapter 8, Pavement Engineering Assessment Standard

**Critical PCI: for more information, see ETL 14-3, Preventive Maintenance Plan (PMP) for Airfield Pavements, paragraph 5

PCI Ratings Definitions: Specific guidance on PCI Ratings definitions can be found on the Pavements and Airfield Damage Repair website. First time users will need to request access to this document; access is usually granted within 1-2 business days. Definitions for “Good,” “Fair,” and “Poor” are included below as a guide. While these definitions were developed for airfields, use these definitions for roads and parking as well.

Table 3: Definitions of PCI Ratings

Airfield Shoulders: Older airfield PCI surveys do not have shoulders in the inventory. More recent PCI survey reports have shoulders included in the inventory and provide a rating of “Good,” “Fair,” and “Poor.” The base can perform a cursory PCI survey on these shoulders to generate a PCI value, enter the data in a new PAVER database, and enter the value in column AC of the Pavement Repair Requirements and Prioritization document. Alternately, the base can assign a PCI of 85 for Good, 65 for Fair, and 41 for Poor (based on the descriptions in the table above) in column AC of the document to compute PoF. The pavement rank of the shoulder is the same as the load bearing pavement it is associated with and is used to adjust MDIs as with load-bearing airfield pavements. For example, if the shoulder is for a primary taxiway, it is also a primary pavement. Enter a replacement value of $8.07 per square foot. Adjust this amount using the area cost factor for your installation using UFC 3-701-01* Table 4-1: Area Cost Factors (use the Sustainment column). Also adjust the amount with the appropriate cost escalation factor (UFC 3-701-01 Table 4-4: Operation and Maintenance Escalation Rates) to adjust this FY13 cost to the appropriate FY. Put the resulting cost in column AS of the Pavement Repair Requirements and Prioritization document (also known as the Roll-up Requirements worksheet). If the shoulders

Go to Table of Contents 33 | P a g e

have not been segmented (in a PCI survey) previously, follow guidance in AFI 32-1041, chapter 3, page 18, to assign a branch name. For example, a shoulder on runway 10/28 is given branch name SH1028 and assigned a unique section name such as S01. A traffic area indicator is not required. Enter the estimated cost for each section in the project in column AK of the Pavement Repair Requirements and Prioritization document.

Roads and Parking: Use the PCI data from the PCI Survey Report to complete the Pavement Repair Requirements and Prioritization document using the same process as airfields, but leave the cells for FOD, Structural, and Skid deducts blank. If a road and parking PCI Survey Report is not available, perform a cursory PCI evaluation and use that data to complete the spreadsheet. Alternately, a PCI of 85 for Good, 65 for Fair, and 41 for Poor (based on the descriptions in the table above) can be used to complete column AC of the spreadsheet. Assign a pavement rank following the guidance in AFI 32-1041, paragraph 9.3.2, page 58, to adjust MDIs in the same manner as airfield pavements. Enter a replacement value per square foot of $3.03 for roads and $3.68 for parking. . Adjust these amounts using the area cost factor for your installation using UFC 3-701-01* Table 4-1: Area Cost Factors (use the Sustainment column). Also adjust the amount with the appropriate cost escalation factor (UFC 3-701-01 Table 4-4: Operation and Maintenance Escalation Rates) to adjust this FY13 cost to the appropriate FY. Put the resulting costs in column AS of the spreadsheet. For segmentation, follow the rules in AFI 32-1041, Chapter 3, page 21. For example, each named road is a branch and sections are numbered starting at 01. All of the parking areas associated with a building are a branch and each contiguous parking area, or segments within those parking areas with different construction or histories, are sections numbered starting at 01. Enter the estimated cost for each section of the project in column AK of the spreadsheet.

Curbs, Gutter, and Sidewalk: Assign a Condition Index (CI) value based on the descriptions in the table below and enter the data in the TNAP Project Scoring Worksheet. Curbs and gutters (Category Code [CATCODE] 851143) have their own facility numbers. Create a curb and gutter branch for each named road or parking area associated with a building or function. Use a “CG” prefix for the branch designation. For example, the branch name for a curb and gutter on Main Street could be “CGMAIN.” Create a curb and gutter section for each block along a roadway or for each side of a parking area and number them sequentially (i.e., 01, 02, etc.). Enter the estimated cost for each section in the project in column AK of the spreadsheet.

Rating Condition Index

Definition

GOOD 85 Curb, gutter or sidewalk is serviceable but the project is scheduled as a matter of routine maintenance

FAIR 65 Curbs, gutters, or sidewalk will need replacement in the next 2 years

POOR 41 Curbs and gutters have deteriorated to the point that they are not functioning as designed or in the case of sidewalks, the condition poses an immediate safety hazard

Table 4: Definitions of Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk CI Ratings

CoF: The MDI for curb, gutter, and sidewalk is adjusted in the same way as pavement MDIs (adjusted in accordance with TNAP CAMP Guidance Step 2 above.) The curb, gutter, and sidewalk rank (primary, secondary, or tertiary) is the same as the road it is associated with.

SIR: Use the Project Savings Calculator procedure/tools outlined in the Business Rules to determine SIR.

Bridges

CI and PoF: Every installation performs periodic bridge inspections. Collected bridge data is reported in the Air Force Bridge Inspection database, and some of the data is used to calculate the sufficiency rating as described in the FHWA “Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges.” This Sufficiency Rating is entered in column AJ of the Pavement Repair Requirements and Prioritization document and in the TNAP Project Scoring Worksheet as the CI.

CoF: The MDI for the bridge is adjusted in the same way as pavement MDIs (in accordance with TNAP CAMP Guidance Step 2). The bridge rank (primary, secondary, or tertiary) is the same as the road it is associated with.

SIR: Use the Project Savings Calculator procedure/tools outlined in the Business Rules to determine SIR.

Go to Table of Contents 34 | P a g e

For segmentation, each bridge has its own Real Property Site Unique Identifier (RPSUID), Real Property Unique Identifier (RPUID), Facility Number, and CATCODE (851142). For branch name, use a “BR” prefix and the name of the road the bridge services. For instance a bridge on Main Street (RDMAIN) has Branch name “BRMAIN.” If there is only one bridge on the road, give it section number 01. For any other bridges on the road, number them sequentially (i.e., 01, 02, etc.).

Enter the estimated project cost for each bridge in column AK of the spreadsheet.

Signage

CI and PoF: Assign a CI using the table below and enter the CI in the TNAP Project Scoring Worksheet.

Rating Condition Index

Definition

GOOD 85 Signage is serviceable, project is scheduled as routine maintenance

FAIR 65 Signage will need replacement in the next 2 years

POOR 41 Signage does not meet retro-reflectivity requirements or other safety standards Table 5: Definitions of Signage CI Ratings

CoF: The MDI of the signage is the same as the pavement it is associated with. The signage is assigned to the same facility as the pavement it is associated with, as well as with the segmentation.

The prefix “SI” should be used for the sign branch. For example, the signs associated with Main Street (branch name RDMAIN) are “SIMAIN.” Make every effort to maintain corresponding sectioning between the road sections and sign sections. For instance, the signage in SIMAIN section 01 is physically located in RDMAIN section 01. Enter the estimated cost for each section in the project in column AK of the spreadsheet.

SIR: Use the Project Savings Calculator procedure/tools outlined in the Business Rules to determine SIR.

Airfield and non-Airfield Markings

CI and PoF: Assign a CI using the table below and enter the CI in the TNAP Project Scoring Worksheet:

Rating Condition Index

Definition

GOOD 85 Markings are serviceable, project is scheduled as routine maintenance

FAIR 65 Markings will need replacement in the next 2 years

POOR 41 Markings are missing or obscured to a point that it causes a flight or road safety issue and needs immediate removal and/or restriping

Table 6: Definitions of Airfield and Roadway Marking CI Ratings

CoF: The MDI and rank of the markings are the same as the pavement they are associated with. The markings are assigned to the same facility as the pavement, and the segmentation corresponds to the section of pavement the marking is associated with. However, use “MA” as the prefix for the markings branch. For example, the markings associated with Main Street (branch name RDMAIN) will be “MAMAIN.” Make every effort to maintain corresponding sectioning between the road sections and marking sections. For instance, the markings in MAMAIN section 01 are physically located in RDMAIN section 01. Enter the estimated cost for each section in the project in column AK of the spreadsheet.

Airfield Lighting

CI and PoF: Follow Utilities Guidance and Supplementary Guidance – Electrical for the electrical portion and lighting support structures. Follow Facilities Guidance for a facility housing airfield lighting assets.

COF: For Airfield Lighting follow Consequence of Failure (CoF) and Mission Dependency Index (MDI) section in the Utilities Guidance.

SIR: Use the Project Savings Calculator procedure/tools outlined in the Business Rules to determine SIR.

Assets without CI Information or Assessment Plans

Go to Table of Contents 35 | P a g e

AFCEC has CI information for all Air Force airfield pavements and bridges and a majority of non-airfield pavements. AFCEC is currently developing asset criteria, assessment plans, and business rules for the other TNAP assets (e.g., Navigational Aids [NAVAIDS], airfield lighting, and railways) with the goal of publishing this guidance in the FY18-19 Business Rules. If an installation has a non-pavement requirement that must be funded in FY17-18, provide a detailed description and justification in the ACES-PM Programming/Text/Remarks section and communicate the need to the MAJCOM A4 Staff and associated IMSC Detachment Staff to get a high MAJCOM priority. AFCEC will then prioritize issues like this on a case-by-case basis with MAJCOM participation.

Go to Table of Contents 36 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Utilities Guidance

Introduction Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects Step 2: ACES-PM Guidelines and Calculating PoF, CoF, and SIR Step 3: Provide Data Validation Supplementary Guidance

Water Wastewater/Storm Water Electrical Mechanical

Introduction

This document provides guidance for determining investment priorities and calculating the Probability of Failure (PoF), Consequence of Failure (CoF), and Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) for Utilities requirements. Failure to follow instructions provided within this guidance may prevent projects from receiving proper prioritization and funding as part of the Integrated Priority List (IPL)/Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP). Utility system condition assessment data will be stored in the installation's geospatial database which is managed by the Geo Integration Office (GIO) using the Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure, and Environment (SDSFIE) data model/structure. CAMP requirements not assessed and mapped in the installation's geospatial database will not be considered during the FY17-18 AFCAMP/IPL process. All installations still using releases of SDSFIE prior to 3.1 standards should make every effort to transition to 3.1 in FY16.

Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects

Identifying the installation’s worst and most critical requirements was the focus of the FY16-20 Utilities Activity Management Plan (AMP). Future Years Defense Planning (FYDP) planning identified and verified utilities assets in poor condition, with low Utility Condition Indexes (UCI) and high PoFs. Using that information along with new or existing data from surveys, water models, Interim Work Information Management Systems (IWIMS), work orders, and other sources, civil engineers should determine which requirements for non-privatized systems should be grouped into executable projects for the FY17-18 CAMP.

Step 2: ACES-PM Guidelines and Calculating PoF, CoF, and SIR

Program all requirements as outlined in the AMP/CAMP Automated Civil Engineering System – Project Management (ACES-PM) Data Management Guide. In addition to basic project info, several new fields have been added and are required for FY17-18 AFCAMP Prioritization:

Project Description and Remarks

Provide a well-written description and justification in the ACES-PM Programming/Text section.

Utilities Project Scoring Worksheet

Complete and provide the Utilities Project Scoring Worksheet per the following paragraph. Ensure Cost Sub Total on worksheet is consistent with respective AF Form 3052 and/or DD Form 1391 costs for proposed project execution year.

UCI and PoF

PoF is based on the requirement’s UCI and has a range of 1-100, with a high PoF denoting that an asset is in poor condition. PoF is calculated automatically from the Utilities Project Scoring Worksheet using the guidance below. Four general equations are provided to calculate UCIs for utility assets. Each requirement in a project should fit one of these situations. Civil Engineers should perform surveys and/or assessments to acquire the necessary attributes to complete the Utilities CAMP algorithms. Refer to the Utilities Project Scoring Worksheet in the CAMP Toolbox (located to the right of this Playbook on the Civil Engineering [CE] Portal) and Utility Table References below for guidance and assessment standards for calculating UCIs.

Go to Table of Contents 37 | P a g e

UCI for Linear Distribution Segments (UCId)

UCId = (Direct Condition Rating × 5.0) + (RUL Score × 2.5) + (Failure Score × 2.5)

UCI for Electrical Linear Distribution Segments (UCIde)

UCIde = RUL Score x 10.0

UCI for System Components/Devices/Equipment/Storage/Supply Sources (UCIc) with Estimated Service Life as shown in this guidance

UCIc = (Direct Condition Rating × 6.0) + (RUL Score × 4.0)

UCI for Components/Devices/Storage/Supply Sources with no Industry Standard Estimated Service Life provided in this guidance (UCIcx)

UCIcx = Direct Condition Rating × 10.0

UCI for Compliance/Regulatory Issue: A UCI of 25 is assigned if there is a failure or imminent failure of any existing or mission component of the utility system that will result in a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with a regulatory authority and/or will present serious danger to the health and safety of public or base personnel.

A single project consists of work on one section/segment or more than one section/segment of utilities. For projects with more than one section/segment, or with multiple components or ancillary devices or assets, compute the UCI for each and use a cost-weighted average to compute the UCI for the project as a whole. The Utilities Project Scoring Worksheet in the CAMP Toolbox can help with these calculations. After calculating the cost-weighted average UCI, look up the corresponding PoF score in the Utilities Project Scoring Worksheet, and enter both in the ACES-PM “Other Cost” screen.

Weighted Avg. UCI = (UCI1 × Cost1) + (UCI2 × Cost2) +…

Total Project Cost

Consequence of Failure (CoF) and Mission Dependency Index (MDI)

CoF is equal to (MDI x 0.6) + (MAJCOM Priority Points x 0.4). MDI is currently determined by the utility CATCODE. Because the entire utility has the same CATCODE and the utilities supporting a facility are as critical to mission success as the facility, facilities not supported with utility redundancy are at mission risk. A Utility Dependency Index (UDI) has been created to address this issue without changing the overall utility’s MDI. A UDI attribute is available for every utility segment within SDSFIE 3.1 and will be available in Utility SMS. UDI for utility segments will normally be the MDI for the utility. However, in general, any utility segment supporting a facility having an MDI greater than the utility’s MDI and if the facility does not have redundant service, the single point of failure segments should have a UDI the same as the facility’s MDI. All segments from the facility to a redundant point of service should have the same UDI as the facility’s MDI. A UDI for a facility utility segment greater than the MDI for the utility will be requested for adjudication by the Utility AMP Manager. See UDI Adjustment Request and Approval Process in the Additional Guidance section of the AFCAMP Playbook. Because MAJCOM Priorities are not assigned until MCAMPs are complete, the only data that is programmed in ACES-PM is the UDI (Scoring MDI) of the asset (or the cost weighted average MDI/UDI if the project includes multiple assets and/or utility segments). Use the Utilities Project Scoring Worksheet to calculate the cost weighted average UDI and enter it in the ACES-PM “Other Cost Screen.” For reference the equation used to calculate the cost weighted average UDI is:

𝑊𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐴𝑣𝑔 𝑈𝐷𝐼 =(𝑈𝐷𝐼1 × 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡1) + (𝑈𝐷𝐼2 × 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡2) + ⋯

𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡

SIR The basic equation for calculating a project’s SIR is:

Go to Table of Contents 38 | P a g e

SIR = Life Cycle Savings

Total Project Cost

A Project Savings Calculator is provided in the CAMP Toolbox, and more detailed information is provided on the Savings Calculation tab of the CAMP playbook. Calculate the SIR for each project/requirement and enter it in the ACES-PM Other Cost screen. NOTE: Savings Calculation Worksheet MUST be submitted for EACH project claiming SIR points on the IPL. Missing documentation will result in zero points being awarded for SIR. The table below summarizes the ACES-PM fields, locations, and data sources for the CoF, PoF, Mission Dependency Index (MDI), and SIR metrics.

ACES-PM FIELD NAME

ACES-PM FIELD TAB SOURCE

Condition Index (CI)

AM_CONDITIONINDEX

OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s cost-weighted average UCI. Value is 0 to 100 with no decimals.

PoF AM_PROBABILITYOFFAILURE

OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s PoF score in the “Amount” column. Value is 0 to 100 with no decimals, based on the weighted average UCI.

Scoring MDI

AM_SCORING_MDI OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s MDI or cost-weighted average MDI of all facilities/assets in the project scope. Value is 25 to 99 with no decimals.

SIR AM_SAVINGINVESTMENTRATIO

OTHER COST

Select appropriate “Item Name” from drop down menu. Enter the requirement’s SIR in the “Amount” column. Value is greater than 0 with up to 2 decimals.

Table 2: Summary Table of ACES-PM CAMP Metrics

Step 3: Provide Data Validation

Installations must upload required validation documents to AFCEC in accordance with the Validation Documents section of the Playbook and to the MAJCOM or IMSC Detachment (as directed) when Base Comprehensive Asset Management Plans (BCAMP) are submitted. This includes copies of the following documents: DD Form 1391, the AF Form 3052, the Utilities Project Scoring Worksheet, the BLCC and supporting documentation or the Project Savings Calculator, if applicable, the Simplified Analysis of Alternatives (SAoA) for Minor Construction (EEIC 529) Requirements, and the MDI Adjudication and/or UDI Adjustment approvals, if applicable. Provide a pdf of the geospatial mapping of the project area to include the following layers: utility, buildings, and roads. Highlight the project utility segments. Refer to the Linear Infrastructure Playbook and GeoBase references in the Specialized Toolbox (located to the right of this Playbook).

Supplementary Guidance

Ensure compliance with AFCAMP general guidance contained in AFCAMP Overview.

POL and Real Property Fuel Storage Tank Assets

In the limited situations where the installation has a centrally funded POL requirement (not DLA capitalized), or a fuel tank asset requirement not integral to a generator, provide a detailed description and justification in ACES/PM programming/remarks section and communicate the need to the MAJCOM A7. AFCEC will prioritize issues like this on a case-by-case basis with MAJCOM participation.

Water

The Water Sub-AMP encompasses all Air Force-owned potable water, non-potable water, and Fire Emergency Services (FES) systems up to the five-foot line of serviced facilities, including wells, distribution lines, potable water treatment plants, pumps, valves, hydrants, and storage.

Go to Table of Contents 39 | P a g e

Water Score Tables

Direct Condition Rating Category Direct Condition

Rating

Red (-) Overall component-section on degradation is total. Few, if any, subcomponents are salvageable. Complete loss of component-section or sample serviceability.

5.0

Red Severe serviceability or reliability reduction to the component such that it is barely able to perform. Most subcomponents are severely degraded.

5.5

Red (+) Significant serviceability or reliability reduction in component-section or sample. A majority of subcomponents are severely degraded and others may have varying degrees of degradation.

6.0

Amber (-) Component-section or sample has significant serviceability or reliability loss. Most subcomponents may suffer from moderate degradation or a few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from severe degradation.

7.0

Amber Component-section or sample serviceability or reliability is definitely impaired. Some, but not a majority, of major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from moderate deterioration with perhaps many minor (non-critical) subcomponents suffering from severe deterioration.

7.5

Amber (+) Component-section or sample serviceability or reliability is degraded but adequate. Very few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from moderate deterioration, with perhaps a few minor (non-critical) subcomponents suffering from severe deterioration.

8.0

Green (-) Slight or no serviceability or reliability reduction overall to the component. Some, but not all, minor (non-critical) subcomponents may suffer from minor degradation or more than one major (critical) subcomponent may suffer from slight degradation.

9.0

Green No component-section or sample serviceability or reliability reduction. Some, but not all, minor (non-critical) subcomponents may suffer from slight degradation or few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from slight degradation. Component section greater than one year old.

9.5

Green (+) Entire component free of observable or known distress. Component section is less than one year old.

10.0

Table 3: Water Direct Condition Ratings

Table 4: Water Remaining Useful Life Values

Type of Material

Plastic (Includes

HDPE and

PVC)1

Asbestos Cement

Concrete

Reinforced Concrete with PVC

liner

Vitrified Clay

Ductile Iron/Cast

Iron Steel

Stainless Steel

Estimated Service

Life 502 603 603 704 705 506 407 508

Remaining Useful Life (RUL) (Remaining Service Life / Estimated Service Life1)

RUL Score

0 – 10% 0

11 – 30% 2

31 – 50% 4

51 – 100% 10 1 For Estimated Service Life of pipe materials for distribution systems or components, see table following

Go to Table of Contents 40 | P a g e

1. HDPE = High Density Polyethylene, PVC = Polyvinyl Chloride 2. Expected life for plastics is still a predicted life since they have only been used predominately since the 1980’s. While highly resistant to hydrogen sulfide corrosion, there is discussion that plastic pipe materials may lose strength and elasticity over time. Presently, 50 years is considered an appropriate conservative estimate until a more detailed understanding of performance is established. 3. Concrete and asbestos cement has shown to be fairly robust as a material but is subject to hydrogen sulfide corrosion. Sixty years is determined as a good starting point for both materials. 4. Some concrete pipes are installed with a built-in liner. This is different from rehabilitation of an existing concrete pipe with a liner. While the liner will provide resistance to hydrogen sulfide they do not improve structural performance to the pipe. Therefore, an additional 10 years is applied to account for the liner. 5. Care is required with expected service lives for clay pipes as the basis for the life depends on the failure mode. Clay is highly resistant to hydrogen sulfide which is generally why it is given a high expected life. However, it is brittle and vulnerable to soil movement that could cause early pipe failure. Therefore, 70 years is chosen which is in the lower range of values from published sources accounting for pipe strength. 6. Hydrogen sulfide can cause significant corrosion to metallic pipes given the right circumstances. This tends to reduce expected life of cast iron and ductile iron pipes when used for sanitary systems compared to potable water. They are not used as extensively in sanitary sewer due to corrosion issues and hence 50-year life is provided. 7. Steel (galvanized) pipe tends to be used on smaller diameter service pipes. Experience has shown in potable water applications that galvanized steel often has a relatively short life. Given the more aggressive characteristics of a sanitary flow, a 40-year life is expected. 8. Stainless steel is not used extensively as a pipe material for sanitary sewer but was included for completeness. There is little data to support an expected life but it is likely to have increased corrosion resistance compared to galvanized steel, hence a longer life of 50 years.

Table 5: Estimated Service Life for Linear Distribution Segments

Water Line Breaks/Outages per 5 years Failure Score

>5 breaks/outages per 1000 LF1 0

3-5 breaks/outages per 1000 LF 2

2 breaks/outages per 1000 LF 6

0-1 breaks/outages per 1000 LF 10 1 Per 1,000 Linear Feet of the distribution system(s) or continuous section defined by the user within the requirement

Table 6: Water Line Failure Scores

Wastewater and Storm Water

The Wastewater and Storm Water Sub-AMP encompasses all Air Force-owned industrial and domestic wastewater systems up to the five-foot line of serviced facilities and to the edge of paved surfaces for storm water, including lift stations, collection lines, manholes, wastewater treatment plants, oil/water separators, other wastewater pre-treatment units, storm water pipes, swales, detention/retention areas, and outfalls.

Wastewater and Storm Water Score Tables

Direct Condition Rating Category Direct

Condition Rating

Red (-) Overall component-section on degradation is total. Few, if any, subcomponents are salvageable. Complete loss of component-section or sample serviceability.

5.0

Red Severe serviceability or reliability reduction to the component such that it is barely able to perform. Most subcomponents are severely degraded.

5.5

Red (+) Significant serviceability or reliability reduction in component-section or sample. A majority of subcomponents are severely degraded and others may have varying degrees of degradation.

6.0

Amber (-) Component-section or sample has significant serviceability or reliability loss. Most subcomponents may suffer from moderate degradation or a few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from severe degradation.

7.0

Go to Table of Contents 41 | P a g e

Amber Component-section or sample serviceability or reliability is definitely impaired. Some, but not a majority, of major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from moderate deterioration with perhaps many minor (non-critical) subcomponents suffering from severe deterioration.

7.5

Amber (+) Component-section or sample serviceability or reliability is degraded but adequate. A very few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from moderate deterioration with perhaps a few minor (non-critical) subcomponents suffering from severe deterioration.

8.0

Green (-) Slight or no serviceability or reliability reduction overall to the component. Some, but not all, minor (non-critical) subcomponents may suffer from minor degradation or more than one major (critical) subcomponent may suffer from slight degradation.

9.0

Green No component-section or sample serviceability or reliability reduction. Some, but not all, minor (non-critical) subcomponents may suffer from slight degradation or few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from slight degradation. Component section is greater than one year old.

9.5

Green (+) Entire component free of observable or known distress. Component section is less than one year old.

10.0

Table 7: Wastewater and Storm Water Direct Condition Ratings

Remaining Useful Life (RUL) (Remaining Service Life / Estimated Service Life1)

RUL Score

0 - 10% 0

11 – 30% 2

31 – 50% 4

51 – 100% 10 1 For Estimated Service Life of materials for distribution systems or components, see table following

Table 8: Wastewater and Storm Water Remaining Useful Life Scores

Type of Material

Plastic (Includes HDPE and PVC)1

Asbestos Cement

Concrete

Reinforced Concrete with PVC liner

Vitrified Clay

Ductile Iron/ Cast Iron

Steel Stainless Steel

Estimated Service Life

502 603 603 704 705 506 407 508

1. HDPE = High Density Polyethylene, PVC = Polyvinyl Chloride 2. Expected life for plastics is still a predicted life since they have only been used predominately since the 1980s. While highly resistant to hydrogen sulfide corrosion, there is discussion that plastic pipe materials may lose strength and elasticity over time. Presently, 50 years is considered an appropriate conservative estimate until a more detailed understanding of performance is established. 3. Concrete and asbestos cement has shown to be fairly robust as a material but is subject to hydrogen sulfide corrosion. Sixty years is determined as a good starting point for both materials. 4. Some concrete pipes are installed with a built-in liner. This is different from rehabilitation of an existing concrete pipe with a liner. While the liner will provide resistance to hydrogen sulfide they do not improve structural performance to the pipe. Therefore, an additional 10 years is applied to account for the liner. 5. Care is required with expected service lives for clay pipes as the basis for the life depends on the failure mode. Clay is highly resistant to hydrogen sulfide which is generally why it is given a high expected life. However, it is brittle and vulnerable to soil movement that could cause early pipe failure. Therefore, 70 years is chosen which is in the lower range of values from published sources accounting for pipe strength. 6. Hydrogen sulfide can cause significant corrosion to metallic pipes given the right circumstances. This tends to reduce expected life of cast iron and ductile iron pipes when used for sanitary systems compared to potable water. They are not used as extensively in sanitary sewer due to corrosion issues and hence 50-year life is provided. 7. Steel (galvanized) pipe tends to be used on smaller diameter service pipes. Experience has shown in potable water applications that galvanized steel often has a relatively short life. Given the more aggressive characteristics of a sanitary flow, a 40-year life is expected. 8. Stainless steel is not used extensively as a pipe material for sanitary sewer but was included for completeness. There is little data to support an expected life but it is likely to have increased corrosion resistance compared to galvanized steel, hence a longer life of 50 years.

Go to Table of Contents 42 | P a g e

Table 9: Estimated Service Life of Linear Distribution Segments

Asset Source Expected Service

Life (Years)

Manholes “Manhole Rehabilitation Guide,” 2008 Trenchless Technologies (Publication)

50

Pumping Station Structures

Steel Tank Institute (STI) 30

Pumping Station Electrical Equipment

“Mechanical and Electrical Design of Pumping Stations,” 1994. (USACE)

35

Pumping Mechanical Equipment

“Mechanical and Electrical Design of Pumping Stations,” 1994. (USACE)

35

Table 10: Estimated Service Life of Wastewater System Components

Table 11: Wastewater/Storm Water Line Failure Scores

Electrical

The Electrical Sub-AMP encompasses all Air Force-owned electrical power production and systems within the base boundary up to points of demarcation or to and including the secondary tap of distribution transformers and including overhead and underground distribution lines (electrical manholes, ducts, transformers, switches, junctions, etc.), substations, switching stations, generation plants, utility poles, area lighting (roads, parking lots, security, apron, and recreational), and grounding, bonding and cathodic protection systems for utilities.

Electrical Score Tables

Direct Condition Rating Category Direct

Condition Rating

Red (-) Overall component-section on degradation is total. Few, if any, subcomponents are salvageable. Complete loss of component-section or sample serviceability.

5.0

Red Severe serviceability or reliability reduction to the component such that it is barely able to perform. Most subcomponents are severely degraded.

5.5

Red (+) Significant serviceability or reliability reduction in component-section or sample. A majority of subcomponents are severely degraded and others may have varying degrees of degradation.

6.0

Amber (-) Component-section or sample has significant serviceability or reliability loss. Most subcomponents may suffer from moderate degradation or a few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from severe degradation.

7.0

Amber Component-section or sample serviceability or reliability is definitely impaired. Some, but not a majority, of major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from moderate deterioration with perhaps many minor (non-critical) subcomponents suffering from severe deterioration.

7.5

Amber (+) Component-section or sample serviceability or reliability is degraded but adequate. A very few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from moderate deterioration with perhaps a few minor (non-critical) subcomponents suffering from severe deterioration.

8.0

Wastewater Breaks/Cracks/Sanitary Sewer (SS) Overflows per 5 years

Failure Score

>5 breaks/cracks/SS outages per 1000 LF1 0 3-5 breaks/cracks/SS outages per 1000 LF 2 2 breaks/cracks/SS outages per 1000 LF 6 0-1 breaks/cracks/SS outages per 1000 LF 10 1 Per 1,000 Linear Feet (LF) of the distribution system(s) or continuous section defined by the user within the requirement

Go to Table of Contents 43 | P a g e

Green (-) Slight or no serviceability or reliability reduction overall to the component. Some, but not all, minor (non-critical) subcomponents may suffer from minor degradation or more than one major (critical) subcomponent may suffer from slight degradation.

9.0

Green No component section or sample serviceability or reliability reduction. Some, but not all, minor (non-critical) subcomponents may suffer from slight degradation or few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from slight degradation. Component section is greater than one year old.

9.5

Green (+) Entire component free of observable or known distress. Component section is less than one year old.

10.0

Table 12: Electrical Direct Condition Ratings

Remaining Useful Life (RUL) (Remaining Service Life / Estimated Service Life1)

RUL Score

0 – 10% 0

11 – 30% 2

31 – 50% 4

51 – 100% 10 1 For Estimated Service Life of electrical items for distribution systems or components, see table following

Table 13: Electrical Remaining Useful Life Scores

Electrical Asset Expected Service Life (years)

SKM1 Other2

Steel Poles 55

Concrete Poles 55

Wood Poles 45

Transmission Cables 45-50

Aluminum Conductor Steel Reinforced (ACSR) Cables

50

Bare Copper OH Cables 50

5 – 35 kV Insulated Underground (UG) Cables, before 1990

20

5 - 35 kV Insulated UG Cables, after 1990 45

Plastic conduit (includes HDPE and PVC)3 504

Substation Switch Bays 45-50

Substation Establishment 50-60

Power Transformers 45-50

Capacitors 40 35

Circuit Breakers 45

Gang/Air Switches 35

Pad-mounted Switches 35 1 Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) “Typical Economic Life Span of Major High Voltage Electrical Equipment,” Jan. 16, 2009. 2 USAF Cost Estimating Model for Utility Privatization of Base wide Electrical Systems. 3. HDPE = High Density Polyethylene, PVC = Polyvinyl Chloride 4. Expected life for plastics is still a predicted life since they have only been used predominately since the 1980s. While highly resistant to hydrogen sulfide corrosion, there is discussion that plastic pipe materials may lose strength and elasticity over time. Presently, 50 years is considered an appropriate conservative estimate until a more detailed understanding of performance is established.

Table 14: Electrical Service Life Years

Mechanical

The Mechanical Sub-AMP encompasses all Air Force-owned facilities that are for the sole purpose of providing transmission monitoring, and maintenance support to the distribution system, including natural gas, hot water and steam transmission systems, and centralized Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) plant systems.

Mechanical Score Tables

Direct Condition Rating Category Direct

Condition Rating

Go to Table of Contents 44 | P a g e

Red (-) Overall component-section on degradation is total. Few, if any, subcomponents are salvageable. Complete loss of component-section or sample serviceability.

5.0

Red Severe serviceability or reliability reduction to the component such that it is barely able to perform. Most subcomponents are severely degraded.

5.5

Red (+) Significant serviceability or reliability reduction in component-section or sample. A majority of subcomponents are severely degraded and others may have varying degrees of degradation.

6.0

Amber (-) Component-section or sample has significant serviceability or reliability loss. Most subcomponents may suffer from moderate degradation or a few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from severe degradation.

7.0

Amber Component-section or sample serviceability or reliability is definitely impaired. Some, but not a majority, of major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from moderate deterioration with perhaps many minor (non-critical) subcomponents suffering from severe deterioration.

7.5

Amber (+) Component-section or sample serviceability or reliability is degraded but adequate. A very few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from moderate deterioration with perhaps a few minor (non-critical) subcomponents suffering from severe. deterioration.

8.0

Green (-) Slight or no serviceability or reliability reduction overall to the component. Some, but not all, minor (non-critical) subcomponents may suffer from minor degradation or more than one major (critical) subcomponent may suffer from slight degradation.

9.0

Green No component-section or sample serviceability or reliability reduction. Some, but not all, minor (non-critical) subcomponents may suffer from slight degradation or few major (critical) subcomponents may suffer from slight degradation. Component section is greater than one year old.

9.5

Green (+) Entire component free of observable or known distress. Component section is less than one year old.

10.0

Table 15: Mechanical Direct Condition Ratings

Remaining Useful Life (RUL) (Remaining Service Life / Estimated Service Life1)

RUL Score

0 – 10% 0

11 – 30% 2

31 – 50% 4

51 – 100% 10 1 For Estimated Service Life of pipe materials for distribution systems, see table following.

Note for components, use formula 2c.

Table 16: Mechanical Remaining Useful Life Scores

Type of Material

Ductile Iron/Cast Iron Steel Stainless

Steel

Estimated Service Life

50 40 50

Table 17: Estimated Service Life of Linear Distribution Segments

Mechanical Line Breaks per 5 years Condition Score

>5 breaks/outages per 1000 LF1 0 3-5 breaks/outages per 1000 LF 2 2 breaks/outages per 1000 LF 6 0-1 breaks/outages per 1000 LF 10 1 Per 1,000 Linear Feet of the distribution system(s) or continuous section defined by the user within the requirement

Table 18: Mechanical Line Failure Scores

Go to Table of Contents 45 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Natural Infrastructure Guidance

Introduction Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects Step 2: ACES-PM Guidelines and Calculating PoF, CoF, and ROI/SIR Step 3: Provide Data Validation

Introduction

This document summarizes the processes for determining investment priorities and calculating the Probability of Failure (PoF), Consequence of Failure (CoF), and Return on Investment/Savings to Investment Ratio (ROI/SIR) for Environmental Quality (EQ) requirements as part of the Natural Infrastructure (NI) Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP). Detailed processes for identifying requirements, scoring, and validating EQ requirements are contained in the EQ Call Letter, CPR Guide, and associated EQ Programming Guidance.1 Failure to follow the instructions in this Playbook may prevent requirements from being prioritized and funded as part of the Integrated Priority List (IPL)/AFCAMP.

1 https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/edash-workspaces/eqppbe/SitePages/Home.aspx

Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects

Requirement owners should program EQ requirements in the Automated Civil Engineering System – Project Management (ACES-PM) per established Headquarters Air Force (HAF) and Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) programming guidance on the EQ Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution (PPBE) Page 2 and in accordance with specific guidance on ACES-PM fields to maintain per the Business Rules for EQ Spend Plan Development/Maintenance and ACES-PM Programming

Step 2: ACES-PM Guidelines and Calculating PoF, CoF, and ROI/SIR

Natural and Built Infrastructure requirements will be consolidated and prioritized in a comprehensive IPL/AFCAMP based on PoF, CoF, and ROI/SIR. For the EQ program, scoring information in ACES-PM is used to facilitate prioritization as follows:

CRITERIA SOURCE REMARKS

PoF = r (100 points max)

EQ Programming Guide: Regulatory Implication (r)

PoF assesses environmental/regulatory compliance implications if an EQ requirement is not funded. See NI Project Scoring Worksheet in CAMP Toolbox

CoF = reff (70 points max) m (15 points max) + e (10 points max) + c (5 points max)

EQ Programming Guide: Regulatory Score (r) Mission Degradation (m) Environmental Risk (e) Stakeholder Interest (c)

CoF assesses expected loss of mission capability due to failure to comply with law/presidential directive etc., legal action that may impact the local mission, risk on public health and/or the environment, and stakeholder concern/potential public reaction if an EQ requirement is not funded. See NI Project Scoring Worksheet in CAMP Toolbox

Go to Table of Contents 46 | P a g e

Savings = Savings Points (10 points max)

EQ Programming Guide: Return on Investments (i) and NI Project Scoring Worksheet table referencing conversion from “i” to Savings Points

Considers upgrade in technology/processes that reduce requirements and/or operating costs such as permits, fees, disposal, etc. Also considers whether requirement is related to a significant Environmental Management System (EMS) aspect and project savings. Savings must be funds that can be redirected to support other requirements, and does not include sunk costs or cost avoidance (such as fines avoided)

Table 1: EQ IPL Scoring Criteria

CoF for NI Requirements: Natural Infrastructure projects will be given effective regulatory scores (reff) in accordance with the table below to capture the mission consequence of failure to comply with regulations from different levels (Federal/State Law, Executive Orders, DoDIs, AFI’s etc). Project score will be based on the effective regulatory score.

Regulatory Score Effective Regulatory Score (reff) for CoF

Reg 5 5

Reg 4 4.5

Reg 3 4

Reg 2 3

Reg 1 2 Table 2: Effective Regulatory Score for CoF

Joint SRM/EQ (Coadjutant) Requirements: The joint Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM)/EQ (Coadjutant) Requirements are those requirements that are mutually beneficial to both the EQ and SRM programs. Typically, these are built infrastructure-related requirements which (as identified within the installation’s environmental management system [EMS]) have EQ compliance implications and/or create environmental impacts and should be identified for execution and placed on the IPL irrespective of Program Element Code (PEC) funding source. Examples include backflow repair projects, fuel storage tank repair, and corrective actions to address inflow and infiltration compliance. Investing money in these requirements may reduce an existing environmental compliance burden or prevent a future environmental compliance burden/environmental liability. To be considered for funding in the IPL/AFCAMP, these requirements should to be programmed as SRM or EQ requirements as follows:

Program as an SRM Requirement: The installation EMS Cross Functional Team (CFT) should identify the requirement for SRM programming to the built infrastructure programming office. If programmed via SRM, the requirement should be scored per the Facilities or Utilities CAMP Guidance and programmed according to the ACES-PM Data Management Guide

Program as an EQ Requirement: The installation EMS CFT should identify the requirement for EQ programming to the appropriate Installation Support Team (IST) or AFCEC Store Front. If programmed via EQ, the requirements should be scored per EQ Programming Guidance

Note: A requirement should only be programmed in SRM 'or' EQ, not both. Ensure in either case, the requirement is programmed in complete compliance with business rules and program specific ACES-PM guidance. Failure to fully comply and provide all required data for the avenue selected will result in omission from the IPL

Step 3: Provide Data Validation

All projects related to Air Force or installation-level EMS significant aspects should include a description of how the project will address the aspect(s) within the project description.

The scoring of the Regulatory Implication “r” factor across EQ requirements must be applied consistently and accurately. If an EQ requirement is to receive a Regulatory Implication “r” score of "5" per the EQ Scoring Model, the statutory or

Go to Table of Contents 47 | P a g e

regulatory driver must be directly linked to the requirement and clearly articulated in the Justification section of the Text Button on the Environmental Tab field in ACES-PM.

Note: An ROI Calculation Worksheet MUST be submitted for EACH project claiming ROI/SIR points on the IPL. Missing documentation will result in zero points being awarded for ROI/SIR.

Go to Table of Contents 48 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Minor Construction Guidance

Minor Construction (EEIC 529) Requirements Stand-Alone Minor Construction Projects Repair Projects that Include Minor Construction Components

Minor Construction (EEIC 529) Requirements

The following sections provide simplified guidance on how to incorporate minor construction requirements into the Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (CAMP). Failure to follow the instructions provided within this guidance may prevent requirements from being prioritized and funded as part of the IPL. This guidance is not applicable to Environmental Quality (EQ) minor construction requirements. EQ requirements will be programmed and scored according to Natural Infrastructure (NI) CAMP guidance.

Stand-Alone Minor Construction Projects

Once requirements have been validated and approval has been obtained, stand-alone minor construction projects are given a Probability of Failure (PoF) score of 40, 60, 80, or 100 in accordance with the table below as approved by the installation Facilities Board. Enter the score in the appropriate PoF field in ACES and also document the justification for that score in the Remarks section of the text screen.

PoF Score Description

100 Pts Absolutely no workarounds are available and other options are more costly than the proposed action. (SAoA including evaluation of Status Quo option is required)

80 Pts Work around available, but mission will remain degraded

60 Pts Work around available, mission not impacted but not all UFC, AFIs, etc. met

40 Pts Nice to have, QoL Table 3: PoF Scoring Definitions

The Mission Dependency Index (MDI) for the project should match the projected Category Code(s) (CATCODE) of the facility’s intended function.

Minor construction requirements also require a Simplified Analysis of Alternatives (SAoA) to be completed and uploaded to the CE Portal to ensure all methods of satisfying the requirement were considered. See SAoA guidance in Business Rules and the AFCAMP Playbook for more information.

Applicable CAMP Business Rules should be utilized in determining the project’s Consequence of Failure (CoF), Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR), and Total Score.

Repair Projects that Include Minor Construction Components

To calculate the PoF for a repair project that includes minor construction components, utilize applicable Activity Management Plan (AMP) guidance to calculate the PoF for the repair components within the requirement. Minor Construction components within the project require Facilities Board approval as described above and will receive a PoF of 40, 60, 80, or 100. The PoF score for the project as a whole is calculated using a cost-weighted average for the repair and minor construction items:

Weighted Avg. PoF = (Repair PoF x Total Repair Cost) + (MC PoF× Total Minor Construction Cost)

Total Project Cost

Applicable CAMP Business Rules should be utilized in determining the project’s CoF, SIR, and Total Score. SAoA is required for all minor construction that increases square footage (reference 1.C.4.1).

Go to Table of Contents 49 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Cost Savings Guidance

Risk-Based Requirement Savings Background BLCC Program Project Savings Calculator Miscellaneous

Savings-Only Requirement Savings Background Built Infrastructure Facilities Demolition Projects Consolidation and Isolation Projects

Risk-Based Requirement Savings

Background

While focus funds have gone away, the need to save money has not. Cost savings need to be a part of every investment decision civil engineers make, regardless of the requirement. The Integrated Priority List (IPL) model focuses primarily on Probability of Failure (PoF) and Consequence of Failure (CoF), but the final ten points of the model are based on project savings, which are calculated using a Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) and will be measured as follows:

IPL Point Value = SIR X 10; when SIR ≥ 1.0, IPL Point Value = 10 Points SIR for Built Infrastructure requirements will be calculated in one of two ways: 1) Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC) program or 2) Project Savings Calculator. The SIR for both methods will be based on the following formula:

SIR = Life Cycle Savings + 3rd Party Funds

Requirement Cost

Life Cycle Savings: These savings are based on reductions to recurring CE-related Operations and Maintenance (O&M) costs over a maximum 25-year period. Examples of these costs include reductions to corrective maintenance as a result of replacing deteriorated components and reduced energy consumption as the result of more efficient equipment.

Third Party Funds: This refers to funds being provided from a source other than the centralized account. Any funds from external sources are treated as a direct savings to the total requirement cost. Examples of these costs include Army and Air Force Exchange Service Facilities (AAFES) or non-appropriated funds (NAF) and local unit funds. In all cases, if third party funds are being included in the SIR, then appropriate documentation must be available for validation. See the Validation Documents narrative of this Playbook for more information on how to upload documents to SharePoint.

Savings Limitations: Savings must be CE-related O&M funds that can be redirected to support other requirements. It should not include sunk costs, cost avoidance (such as fines avoided), or budgetary savings from non-CE activities.

Requirement Cost: This refers to the requirement PA as shown in the Automated Civil Engineering System – Project Management (ACES-PM). This cost should include all project-related costs being requested from the centralized account (does not include potential third party funds).

Once complete, the calculated SIR (not the IPL Savings Point Value) will be input into ACES-PM under the AM_SAVINGSINVESTMENTRATIO field of the Other Costs tab. The SIR (to the hundredth decimal) should be inserted into the Amounts field along with an execution fiscal year (FY). The Remarks tab should state what tool was used (Project Savings Calculator or BLCC).

Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC) Program

Go to Table of Contents 50 | P a g e

Since the inception of the Energy Program (NRG) Focus Fund in 2008, a robust energy program has been developed across the Air Force that utilizes the Department of Energy’s BLCC program to calculate SIRs along with other business rules that provide a framework for investigating savings opportunities. In addition, resources have been committed to support Resource Efficiency Managers (REM) at the installations and the Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) has established Asset Visibility Teams to travel to the installations to identify opportunities. To take advantage of these efforts (and expertise), installations may use BLCC to calculate requirement SIRs. Third-party funds and Troop Training Program savings should be input into BLCC in a similar manner as a utility company rebate and should be annotated accordingly. Once complete, the calculated SIR should be inserted into ACES-PM. All BLCC documentation should be saved to PDF and uploaded to the SharePoint site in accordance with the Validation Documents narrative in this Playbook. For additional information regarding BLCC please refer to the Energy section of these business rules.

Project Savings Calculator (PSC)

The PSC (in the CAMP Toolbox) is a simple tool developed as part of the Operations Engineering Playbook. The goal of this tool is to provide a consistent and easy-to-use cost estimation framework for all personnel at an installation. While BLCC may provide more accurate data, not all installations have the expertise necessary to run the program. If that is the case, an installation should utilize the PSC for calculating their savings. The PSC consists of two tabs entitled Input and Summary. Programmers should input all of their requirement-specific information into the Input tab, and once complete, should insert the calculated SIR into ACES-PM. Both sheets of the PSC should be saved as a PDF and uploaded to the SharePoint site in accordance with the Validation Documents narrative in this Playbook.

Miscellaneous

Both the BLCC and the PSC capture savings tied to reduced preventive and corrective maintenance costs as the result of replacing a deteriorated asset. These costs cannot be eliminated altogether, however. For facilities requirements, costs may not be reduced more than 90%. For utilities and pavements requirements, costs may not be reduced more than 70%. In addition, to claim costs for pavements and utilities, installations must be able to tie the work order cost to the particular asset within the project scope. The work order must be tied to the Pavement Facility Map (if developed) or a particular line/piece of equipment within the utility infrastructure system(s).

Savings-Only Requirement Savings

Background

Some requirements may not have a high PoF and/or major consequences if they fail, but they do provide a positive return on investment (ROI). Depending on the fiscal climate, investing in these savings-only requirements might not always be possible, but they do need to be considered at the Civil Engineering (CE) Council when making investment decisions. Requirements scoring well in this area (SIR > 1.0) are lumped together into groups with similar SIRs and inserted into the IPL where the CE Council deems appropriate. The number of requirements and their place within the IPL may vary from year to year. The key is to identify these efficiencies at all levels and provide them an avenue for execution should they be deemed important.

The calculated SIR for each requirement should be inserted into ACES-PM under the AM_SAVINGINVESTMENTRATIO field of the Other Costs tab. The SIR value should be inserted in the Amounts field along with the execution FY. Savings-only requirements will be considered for inclusion only if they meet the following rule: All requirements must have a PoF and CoF uploaded in ACES-PM and have an SIR ≥ 1.0.

Built Infrastructure Facilities

A large number of facilities are still operating with dated lighting, Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems, windows, and other components. These systems may be operating properly and may not be at risk of failure. In addition, there may be little impact to the occupants’ mission if they do fail. However, civil engineers know that replacing these systems may result in significant savings across the lifecycle of each component – some may even pay themselves off in as little as one year. These savings mean more money will be available for use on more critical requirements that have a higher risk factor. The formula used for these requirements is no different than the formula being used for risk-based requirements. The only difference is that requirements must have an SIR greater than 1.0 to compete. PoF and CoF inputs are still necessary for these requirements, but an SIR in excess of 1.0 is the indicator that a particular requirement is a candidate for savings-only consideration.

Go to Table of Contents 51 | P a g e

Demolition Projects

Pure demolition projects will compete for funding provided the SIR is greater than 1. The SIR for demolition projects will equal recurring costs saved across a 25-year period (plus external funds) divided by the cost of demolition. Other options should be considered for requirements with an SIR less than 1.0 (e.g., caretaker status, consolidation, repurposing).

SIR = Life Cycle Savings (100% of 25 yr. recurring costs) + 3rd Party Funds

Demolition PA

Programmers will use the PSC for demolition requirements. All of the applicable data should be added to the Input tab, and the calculated SIR based on the formula above will be pulled from the Summary tab. Once complete, the calculated SIR will be input into ACES-PM under the AM_SAVINGSINVESTMENTRATIO field of the Other Costs tab. The SIR (to the hundredth decimal) should be inserted into the Amounts field along with an execution FY.

Consolidation and Isolation Projects

Consolidation projects and projects which isolate buildings from utility connections compete for funding provided there is a positive ROI. The SIR for consolidation requirements may be calculated using either the Cost Savings Calculator or BLCC. If using BLCC, programmers should utilize the formula below to calculate their SIR. This is similar to risk-based requirements with the exception that they can claim 100% of the 25-year recurring costs from the divested asset.

SIR = Life Cycle Savings + 25 yr. recurring costs (Divested Asset) + 3rd Party Funds

Total Requirement PA

If the PSC is being utilized, programmers must input two separate projects. The first iteration is for the consolidation requirement, and is no different than a risk-based facilities requirement. The second iteration is for the divestment portion of the requirement. Once complete, the final SIR will be calculated using the Summary SIR Calculator for Multiple Sub-Projects Worksheet (in the CAMP Toolbox), which will summarize the data from the separate projects. The total requirement PA consists of the consolidation requirement PA and the demolition PA of the divested asset if it is being recommended for demolition. Both calculator inputs, as well as the summary SIR calculation, should be saved to PDF and uploaded to SharePoint in accordance with the Validation Documents narrative in this Playbook.

For a Leased Space business case analysis (BCA), use the Project Savings Calculator.

Both Risk Based and Savings Only Requirement Savings

Multiple Facilities

If the project will be accomplished in multiple facilities SIR needs to be the cost-weighted SIR over those facilities. First, determine the SIR for each facility based on the guidance above. To calculate the cost weighted average SIR for the entire project use the below formula:

Weighted Average SIR = (SIR1 × Cost1) + (𝑆𝐼𝑅2 × Cost2) +…

Total Project Cost

Go to Table of Contents 52 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Energy Guidance

Energy Saving Project Requirements Energy Project Programming Design-Only Energy Saving Projects Water Conservation (Energy Saving) Projects Economic Life for Energy and Water Conservation Projects

Energy Saving Project Requirements

Energy projects provide significant life cycle financial savings through the reduction of monthly utility costs while also helping to meet goals and mandates for energy reduction. As such, the Air Force remains committed to funding energy saving projects that provide a good return on investment (ROI). Energy savings projects are those where at least 35% or more of the estimated financial savings claimed in the Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC) evaluation come directly from reduced energy (or water) consumption, not Operations and Maintenance (O&M) savings. 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).

Funding for energy-saving projects will be determined each year by the Civil Engineering (CE) Council as part of the overall Integrated Project List (IPL) for Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (FSRM) funding. This determination will be based on total funding available and the relative value to the Air Force, in terms of life cycle financial savings and reduced energy consumption, of the proposed energy projects. Many savings projects also provide improved infrastructure reliability and as such may also lead to a more favorable Probability of Failure (PoF) score after the project is completed, reflecting the reduction of risk to the Air Force. Bases are expected to continue to identify and program life cycle cost-effective projects for energy and water conservation.

The criteria for programming FSRM energy projects are essentially the same as for legacy Energy Focus Fund projects. Energy projects must offer both a Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) > 1.0 and reduced energy consumption. When a savings-only project derives ~35% or more of its estimated life cycle savings directly from reduced energy consumption (vs. O&M savings), the project will be reviewed and validated by the Air Force Civil Engineer Center Energy Program Development Division (AFCEC/CND) for funding as an “NRG” project. The selection of energy projects is based on SIR and savings, but like all other savings requirements, a PoF and Consequence of Failure (CoF) must be uploaded in ACES-PM to track ancillary impacts to Air Force risk. Like other savings requirements, energy projects can also provide improved infrastructure reliability, so a PoF and CoF score must also be loaded in ACES-PM for the project to be considered.

Energy Project Programming

Civil engineers need to complete the following steps to program energy projects:

Step 1: Program energy saving projects in the Automated Civil Engineering System – Project Management (ACES-PM) as part of the Base Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (BCAMP). Energy saving projects are included with FSRM projects in the centralized IPL and are not programmed as a separate action on a different schedule. Follow standard programming guidance in the ACES-PM Data Management Guide, and select “NRG” for the Funding Source field to identify the project as an energy saving project (i.e., SIR > 1.0 and > 35% of estimated life cycle financial savings comes from reduced energy consumption).

Step 2: Complete a Building Life Cycle Cost (BLCC) estimate for the project using the current version of BLCC (Applied Economics Office Engineering Laboratory, National Institute of Standards and Technology). The BLCC software is updated annually by NIST, and the approval letter to upload the latest version is on the AF Energy SharePoint at:

https://cs3.eis.af.mil/sites/OO-EN-CE-A4/default.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsites%2FOO%2DEN%2DCE%2DA4%2FAFKN%5FDocs%2Fd%2E%20Energy%20Directorate%20Info%2FPolicy%20and%20Guidance%2FAir%20Force%2F8%2E%20Software&FolderCTID=0x012000FBA0C90B89E3274D90EA41BE0CAC416B&View={3FA352A3-E1BD-40E0-89DC-77A0AA710DAF}

Use the latest updated version. The Project Savings Calculator used for conventional FSRM projects does not provide sufficient information to support energy savings estimates consistent with project validation requirements.

Go to Table of Contents 53 | P a g e

Step 3: The calculated SIR for all FSRM projects, including energy projects, is input into ACES-PM under the AM_SAVINGSINVESTMENTRATIO field of the Other Costs tab. For energy saving projects, also go to the ACES-PM Program tab (upper left of ACES screen) and select Energy Requirements, then complete the five fields: SIR, Simple Payback, Annual Dollars Saved Amount, Annual Energy Saved Amount, and Economic Life. Each of these values comes from the BLCC report.

Step 4: Prepare a project validation package and include the following documents:

Department of Defense (DD) Form 1391, Military Construction Project Data, with a detailed project description, including building numbers and types of facilities (e.g. administrative, dorms, hangar, warehouse, simulator building).

A copy of the completed BLCC report.

Supporting documentation demonstrating how the savings estimates shown in sections 2 and 3 of the above BLCC report were determined. This is usually accomplished using a spreadsheet and explanatory notes. Savings estimates claimed must have adequate justification to support the resultant SIR. Consider the following notes for savings estimates:

o Detailed documentation of the cost estimate is not needed. Project costs must reflect the total estimated construction and design costs (including Supervision, Inspection, and Overhead [SIOH]). Include in- country fees for outside Continental United States (OCONUS) bases within the program authorization (PA).

o Supporting documentation for all energy and non-energy related savings must be provided in the validation package. Reduced consumption of energy equates to hard savings by reducing utility bills. Elimination of all or part of contract services needed, and an attendant contract cost reduction, provides hard savings. Elimination of manpower, not diversion of manpower, provides hard savings.

o Claiming avoided future costs as part of a projects estimated savings is usually not allowed. Exceptions will be made where there is clear justification the avoided cost claimed will result in actual savings to the Air Force.

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

o The Simple Payback (SPB) period must be less than the economic life of the predominant technology used in the project (e.g. the SIR must be based on an analysis of the project within the technology’s economic life). A list of economic life for various energy project technologies is included later in this guidance.

Step 5: Project validation documents must be uploaded and email notification made to AFCEC/CND when the project packages are available for review. AFCEC will make every effort to provide energy project validation review for all candidate projects prior to MAJCOM Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (MCAMP) submittal. Bases must submit validation documents for their proposed BCAMP energy saving projects following the schedule discussed in the FY17-18 AFCAMP Overview, Section 1.B.4. (pages 5 and 6). Early submission by the base enhances the opportunity to work with the base to resolve any issues in a timely manner so that good projects are included in the MCAMP submission. Project validation packages (described in Step 4 above) for energy saving projects proposed for the IPL are submitted in the CE Portal SharePoint/Data Pulls/Validation Docs folder at:

https://cs1.eis.af.mil/sites/ceportal/ProgramGroups/Integration/Pages/DataPulls.aspx?RootFolder=%2Fsites%2Fceportal%2FProgramGroups%2FIntegration%2FData%20Calls%2FFY16%2D17%20AFCAMP%20Supporting%20Docs%2FValidation%20Docs&FolderCTID=0x0120009943A54F754D2D468571F01602C5F554&View={22843CCC-10A4-48FF-AED0-4ECF0FBB6B38}

Step 6: Major Commands (MAJCOMs) and/or their associated Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC) Detachments must include energy project(s) as part of the MCAMP if they want the projects to be considered for funding. Projects are pulled from ACES-PM after MCAMP submittal for review and ranking in the Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP). MAJCOM staff is no longer sufficient to accomplish a thorough vetting of requirements, although a limited MAJCOM and/or associated IMSC detachment examination of BCAMP proposed projects assists in the development of projects within their MCAMP submission.

Step 7: Energy projects are considered for funding by CE leadership based on the annual FSRM budget available and the financial and energy savings offered by the projects to best meet the needs of the Air Force. Projects with an SIR >1.8 will always be very competitive for funding.

Go to Table of Contents 54 | P a g e

Step 8: Projects included on the IPL and selected for funding receive Authority to Advertise (ATAdv) from AFCEC and bids are solicited by the respective installations.

Step 9: Once an FSRM energy project is validated for centralized funding, the validation 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 ACES-PM.

Design-Only Energy Saving Projects

Bases are encouraged to seek design funding for complex or very large projects. For proposed energy projects seeking design funding (with execution funding to be requested for fiscal year [FY]+1), follow programming rules for FSRM projects, with the addition of completing the five energy fields mentioned in Step 3 above. Projects showing the best potential energy savings will receive priority in design fund requests. Projects using a design/build approach will not be eligible for separate design funding.

Water Conservation (Energy Saving) Projects

Because water conservation projects rarely compete well on SIR or energy savings metrics, a concise, clear narrative is needed to support the importance of a proposed water conservation project. Clear justification and base support can influence the MAJCOM priority, and thus the project priority for IPL inclusion. This is in addition to the technical aspects of a proposed water project (e.g. estimated gallons saved, estimated financial savings, risk of service interruption due to failure, frequent leaks/repairs and associated repair costs).

Economic Life for Energy and Water Conservation Projects

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.

Cat. Title Description Recommended Life (Years)

1 Energy management and control systems (EMCS) or Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) Controls

Projects that centrally control energy systems with the ability to automatically adjust temperature, shed electrical loads, control motor speeds, or adjust lighting intensities.

10

2 Steam and Condensate

Projects to install condensation lines, cross connect lines, install distribution system loops, repair or install insulation, and repair or install steam flow meters and controls.

15

3 Boiler Plant Modifications

Projects to upgrade or replace central boilers or ancillary equipment to improve overall plant efficiency. This includes fuel switching or dual fuel conversions.

20

4 Heating, Ventilation, Air

Projects to install more energy efficient HVAC ventilation or hot water heating equipment. This includes the HVAC distribution system (ducts, pipes, etc.).

20

5 Weatherization Projects improving the thermal envelope of a building. This includes insulation (wall, roof, foundation), insulated doors, windows, vestibules, earth berming, shading, etc.

20

6 Lighting Systems Projects to install replacement lighting systems and controls. This includes daylighting, new fixtures, lamps, ballasts, photocells, motion sensors, infrared (IR) sensors, light wells, highly reflective painting, etc.

15

7 Energy Recovery Systems

Projects to install heat exchangers, regenerators, heat reclaim units or that recapture energy lost to the environment.

20

8 Electrical Energy Systems

Projects that will increase energy efficiency of an electrical device or system, or reduce cost by reducing peak demand.

20

Go to Table of Contents 55 | P a g e

9 Solar Systems Any project utilizing solar energy. This includes solar heating, cooling, hot water, industrial process heat, photovoltaics, wind energy, biomass energy, geothermal energy, and passive solar applications.

10 (active) 20 (passive or photovoltaic)

10 Facility Energy Multiple category projects or those that do not fall into any Improvements other category.

20

11 Water Conservation Retrofit

Projects to install low flow fixtures, control devices, or more water efficient equipment.

5

12 Leak Detection/Repair

Projects to repair water leaks in mains and plumbing systems. 25

13 Water Efficient Landscape

Projects to install xeriscape, subsurface/drip irrigation, irrigation management systems, etc.

15

14 Water Reuse Projects to modify wastewater treatment systems to allow water reuse and projects to reuse grey water.

25

15 Retro and Re- commissioning

Systematic commissioning process to an existing facility that has never been commissioned or needs to be re-commissioned.

4

Table 4: BLCC Economic Life Input

Go to Table of Contents 56 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Family Housing Guidance

Introduction Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects Step 2: Follow ACES-PM Guidelines Step 3: Provide Data Validation Point of Contact

Introduction

The Family Housing (FH) program for the Fiscal Year (FY) 17-18 Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (CAMP) will fully integrate into the O&M process with the exception of funding due to its closed appropriation. The business rules will outline specific requirements regarding the program outlined below. Failure to follow the instructions provided within this guidance may prevent requirements from being prioritized and funded as part of the IPL/AFCAMP.

Step 1: Identify Requirements, Build Prioritized Projects

Projects for FY17-18 should be built using requirements identified and data contained within Housing Community Profiles (HCP) and the Family Housing Master Plan (FHMP). Projects directly aligning to requirements outlined and forecast through the FHMP planning process including the HCP for both scope and cost will be validated. Projects developed after the most recent MFH planning document or which do not align to planning requirements will need to be justified with additional supporting justification for validation.

Step 2: ACES-PM Guidelines and Calculating Probability of Failure (PoF), Consequence of Failure (CoF), and Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR)

Program all projects as outlined in the Automated Civil Engineering System – Project Management (ACES-PM) Data Management Guide, which can be found in the Toolbox section on the right side of this Playbook on the Civil Engineering (CE) Portal. In addition to basic project information, several fields are required for Fiscal Year (FY) 17-18 Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP) Prioritization. Additional details specific to Military Family Housing are outlined below.

MFH funded projects fall into four possible categories of work which will dictate how they are programmed and scored. Those categories of work are Utilities, Pavements, Support Facilities, and Housing Units.

Utilities

Programmed and scored for in accordance with the Utilities AMP incorporating the MFH programming guidance below. Follow this guidance for MFH projects involving utilities.

Pavements

Programmed and scored in accordance with the TNAP AMP incorporating the MFH programming guidance below. Follow this guidance for MFH projects involving pavements.

Facilities (Non-Housing Unit)

Programmed and scored in accordance with the Facilities AMP incorporating the MFH programming guidance below. Follow this guidance for MFH projects involving standalone support facilities.,

Housing Units

Programmed similar to other facility requirements with changes specific for housing unit projects. These changes account for the MFH condition rating system and replace the MDI portion of the CoF score (which is 35 across all MFH housing units) with an additional factor to influence the CoF score for housing unit project requirements. When programming housing unit projects please incorporate the following guidance:

Go to Table of Contents 57 | P a g e

Project Title: Include “GOQ” in the title for projects impacting General Officer Quarters

Other Costs

AM_ConsequenceOfFailure: Use this field to input the number (1-N) of facilities and units affected by the project.

AM_ProbabilityOfFailure: Use this field to input the cost weighted average Condition Index (CI) for the facilities and units affected by the project. If the facility has not been assessed under the new HCP process and CI is not available, substitute the BUILDER CI score with the cost weighted average CAM score for the facilities and units affected by the project.

Scoring for housing unit projects will be calculated as follows:

Housing Unit Projects

Scope Priority Points

Project Scope Maximum 60 points (100 x 0.6) based on project scope and HQ A4CFH guidance on project priorities as follows:

Life, Health, Safety: 60 points

System Failure: 50 Points

HCP Alignment: 40 Points

Housing Unit Repair: 30 Points

Housing Unit Alteration: 20 Points

Demolition: 10 Points

MAJCOM

Priority Points x 0.4

N/A MAJCOM Priority Points (MFH Priorities) #1 priority will receive 100 pts. Points decrease proportionally based on the number of MAJCOM priorities.

Additionally, the programming guidance below applies to all MFH projects in the FY17-18 AFCAMP build:

Project Description: Include the name of the neighborhood(s) involved with the project

MAJCOM Priorities: Because of the separate MFH housing appropriation, MAJCOMs are given a separate set of priorities for MFH requirements (1-N) which are utilized to indicate their priority as well as contribute to the associated 40% influence for the CoF score for the project. The #1 priority for each MAJCOM will receive 100 points decreasing proportionally based on the number of MAJCOM priorities.

Justification: Projects aligning to FHMP & HCP requirements in both scope and cost need to provide a reference to the requirement in project justification field. Projects not aligning to FHMP & HCP need to provide a clear and convincing argument for why this project should be funded above planned requirements. Projects citing life, safety, & health justification should reference triggering agency, inspection, or regulatory requirement.

Project Type Code: MFH

Funding Source Code: MFB

Fund Type: 722 or 722##

Step 3: Provide Data Validation

AFIMSC Detachments will work with remaining MAJCOM staff to review, validate and prioritize candidate projects. The Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) will then perform a programmatic review and validation of candidate projects. Bases are responsible for providing additional information as necessary to support project validation and review as follows:

Projects directly aligning to requirements outlined and forecast through the FHMP planning process including the HCP for both scope and cost will be validated and appear on the FY17--18 IPL. Project justification will need to include plan references for validation, but no other supporting documents will be required.

Projects which have emerged after the most recent master planning document or do not align to planning requirements will need to be justified. Project justification needs to clearly show why the requirement was not identified in the FHMP/HCP in addition to supporting urgency of the requirement itself above FHMP requirements. The following supporting documents are also required for projects which don’t align to the IFHMP/HCP:

Go to Table of Contents 58 | P a g e

o Detailed project cost estimate (DD1391) o Supporting sketches, drawings, photographs o Savings to Investment Ratio (SIR) calculations for projects citing savings justification

Supporting documentation shall be submitted for validation and review via the MFH Planning SharePoint site.

MFH project work type and approval thresholds are outlined in attachment 3 of AFI 32-6002.

FY17 and 18 Projects needing Exceed Threshold (ET) authority from SAF/IEE will require additional supporting documentation for the AFCAMP process to inform the PB process. The in cycle Exceed Threshold (ET) data call will be due ahead of the MCAMP submittal in order to inform the PB and will feed into the AFCAMP process. The out of cycle (ET) submittals will be submitted as part of the MCAMP submission with the same deadline. Specific requirements for the FY17-18 ET submittal process, supporting documentation, and details will be released at a later date through the MFH data call process.

Point of Contact

Kelly Childress is the Housing Sub-Activity Management Plan (Sub-AMP) Manager in the AFCEC Comprehensive Program Development Branch (AFCEC/CPAD). Mr. Childress’ contact information is shown below.

Kelly Childress (AFCEC/CPAD) Housing Sub-AMP Manager DSN: 969-8871 Commercial: 210-395-8871 kelly.childress@us.af.mil

Go to Table of Contents 59 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Refining Mission Dependency Index

Introduction Problem Statement and Methodology Desired Results and Expectations Step 1: Identify CATCODEs or Facilities for Case-by-Case Consideration Step 2: MAJCOM/AFCEC Review and Submittal

Introduction

These instructions will allow MAJCOMs and Installations to submit Mission Dependency Index (MDI) refinement inputs for corporate adjudication. MDI is intended to provide installation operations and maintenance (O&M) personnel as well as corporate investment decision makers with a steady-state understanding of the mission dependence and priority for each asset within the Facilities, Utilities, and Transportation Networks/Airfield Pavements portfolios.

Problem Statement and Methodology

MDI is currently assigned, for the most part, based on a facility’s primary or associate Category Code (CATCODE). This provides an accurate assessment in most cases, but not all. For example, using the CATCODE for a warehouse facility, every warehouse in the Air Force is treated with equal mission dependence (MDI=71). This disregards important information such as what function occurs in the warehouse, what mission the warehouse supports, or whether it’s a single point of failure for that mission.

Desired Results and Expectations

AFCEC does not expect this process to achieve a perfect end state. There will never be an equation or purely analytical solution to determine the perfect MDI for every facility. We will rely on good communication as well as fair and open adjudication. The desired results and expectations are a downward migration within certain CATCODEs, status quo for the majority of facilities, and upward adjustments of a select set of assets. Achieving this effect will hinge on the Installations’ and MAJCOMs’ ability to communicate these unique requirements in terms of not only local mission impacts or MAJCOM priorities, but also relative to the Air Force's strategic capabilities defined in the AF2023 Implementation Plan in the CAMP Toolbox. Installations should not submit 50% of an Installation’s assets as Class 1. Focus on downward adjustments as much as upward adjustments. Downward migration of redundant or non-essential facilities will have a greater long-term benefit as it will accentuate assets that are truly important when difficult decisions must be made.

Step 1: Identify CATCODEs or Facilities for Case-by-Case Consideration

This is the installations’ opportunity to identify any Mission Critical or Mission Support CATCODEs and/or facilities that may require adjudication. Installations should utilize existing working groups, facility manager feedback, existing plans, and local mission owners to properly coordinate requests and recommendations. Consider assets with respect to the Critical Asset Risk Management (CARM) program, but do not specifically reference it in a request to protect against potential sensitive information flow. Specific information related to CARM facilities must be sent via a secured (SIPR) network. Gain approval from the Installation Commander or Facility Board Chair and submit request using the MDI Refinement Adjudication SharePoint, located on the left side of the CE Portal Integration Program Group page. Link is in Specialized Toolbox on the right. Click on “New” and populate all fields except for Adjudicated MDI, which will be completed by AFCEC/CP. Use the justification block in combination with the AF2023 capability block to link the facility to Air Force capabilities. Please avoid the use of acronyms that are specific to installations or commands. Ensure each adjudication request includes:

CATCODE

CATCODE Description

Facility #

Facility Name

AF2023 Capability Supported

Justification

Current MDI and Tier

Go to Table of Contents 60 | P a g e

Requested MDI and Tier

RPUID

For current and requested tier, use the following criteria: Tier General Criteria Examples

1 Mission Critical, roughly Top 10%, with

recommended MFI from 85 to 99 Example 99: Operational Runway, Space Ops Facility, Jet Fuel Storage Example 85: Deployment Processing Facility, Air Passenger Terminal

2 Direct Mission Support, roughly Top

25% With recommended MDI from 70 to 84

Example 84: R&D Laboratories, Primary Water/Wastewater assets Example 70: Maintenance Hangar, Technical Training Classroom

3 Base Support, roughly top 50%, with

recommended MDI from 60 to 69 Example 60: Test Stand, Education Center, Propulsion Engine Test Cell Will consider for adjustment by rare exception at this time

4 Community Support (no mission

impact) With recommended MDI below 60

Will only be considered by very rare exception at this time

Table 5: MDI Tier Criteria

Step 2: MAJCOM/AFCEC Review and Approval

MAJCOMs will review all requests to ensure they align with MAJCOM prioritization structures, mission goals and AF strategic priorities. Although AFIMSC detachments may assist MAJCOMs, the MAJCOM as the mission owner is responsible for all requests. AFCEC will review submittals to draw trends and assign a new MDI at the facility or CATCODE level if appropriate. The AFCEC Director is the approval authority for MDI adjudication and will report results back to MAJCOMs/installations through established governance structures. All MDI adjudication requests must be submitted prior to, or in coordination with the BCAMP. MAJCOMs/installations can also set an alert on SharePoint so that they receive email updates as a record is modified. Installations must ensure update of ACES-PM and/or TRIRIGA with the adjusted MDI.

Figure 4: MDI Refinement Adjudication folder on the Integration Program Group homepage

Go to Table of Contents 61 | P a g e

FY18-17 AFCAMP – UDI Adjustment Request and Approval Process

Purpose Problem Statement and Methodology Desired Results and Expectations Step 1: Identify Utility Segment(s) and the Facility(ies) supported with associated MDIs for case-by-case

consideration Step 2: MAJCOM Review and Submittal Step 3: Submittal to AFCEC/CPA for Approval Step 4: Implementation of Approved Requests and Future Changes

Purpose

These instructions will allow Major Commands (MAJCOM) and Installations to submit Utility Dependency Index (UDI) refinement inputs for corporate adjustment and approval. UDI is intended to provide installation Operations and Maintenance (O&M) personnel, as well as corporate investment decision makers, with a steady-state understanding of the mission dependence and priority for each utility segment supporting Facilities and Transportation Networks/Airfields portfolios.

Problem Statement and Methodology

Mission Dependency Index (MDI) is currently assigned, for the most part, based on a utility’s primary or associate Category Code (CATCODE). This provides an accurate assessment in most cases, but not all. For example, the CATCODE for electrical distribution has an MDI of 81 supporting a facility with an MDI of 94. This disregards important information such as what function occurs in the facility and whether the utility segment(s) are a single point of failure for the facility’s mission.

Desired Results and Expectations

The Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC) does not expect this process to achieve a perfect end state. There will never be an equation or purely analytical solution to determine the perfect UDI for every utility segment. We will rely on good communication as well as fair and open adjustment. The desired results and expectations are a status quo for the majority of utility segments and upward adjustments of a select set of utility segments supporting Tier 1 and Tier 2 facilities. The desired effect will be utility segments with a single point of failure supporting Mission Critical and Mission Support facilities receiving the same mission risk.

Step 1: Identify Utility Segment(s) and the Facility(ies) supported with associated MDIs for case-by-case consideration

This is the installation’s opportunity to identify any single point of failure utility segments supporting Mission Critical or Mission Support facilities that may require UDI adjustment. Installation Utility AMP/Sub-AMP Managers must utilize existing geospatial data base (SDSFIE 3.1) with desired segments assessed and mapped to coordinate request(s). Submit directly to the AFCEC Activity Integration Division (AFCEC/CPA) Utility AMP manager for approval. Refer to the UDI adjustment sample in the Specialized Toolbox (located to the right of this Playbook. Each adjustment request must include:

Project Description (if request is associated with a project)

A geospatial database diagram and supporting documentation to include or identify: o The portion of the utility’s distribution system sufficient to give a visual representation of the request, all

facilities supported by the request, and the request’s connectivity to the remaining part of the utility system;

o If available for electrical requests, the portion of the utility’s distribution system in a current EasyPower® one-line in pdf;

o All utility segments identified; o All facilities supported by the request identified with MDI and Tier; and o All segments requiring UDI adjustment along with the requested UDI.

Go to Table of Contents 62 | P a g e

Installations may submit requests for UDI changes of utility distribution system segments at any time.

Step 2: MAJCOM Review and Submittal

MAJCOMs will review all requests to ensure they align with MAJCOM prioritization structures, mission goals and AF strategic priorities. Although Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center (AFIMSC) detachments may assist MAJCOMs, the MAJCOM as the mission owner is responsible for all requests. All MDI adjudication requests must be submitted prior to, or in coordination with the BCAMP. Installations must ensure update of ACES-PM and/or TRIRIGA with the adjusted MDI.

Step 3: Submittal to AFCEC/CPA

After receipt of MAJCOM approved requests, the Utility AMP Manager will forward to the appropriate Utility Sub-AMP Manager(s) for approval/disapproval recommendations. The Utility AMP manager will make final decision on UDI changes. In no case will a utility segment have a UDI less than the existing MDI associated with the utility CATCODE. Requests supporting projects will be given priority handling.

Step 4: Implementation of Approved Requests and Future Changes

For projects, input approved UDIs for the segments into the Utilities Project Scoring Worksheet to compute Weighted Avg UDI and CoF. A copy of the UDI request and approval will be included in the project submission as validating data.

Approved UDI adjustments can be input as the UDI for appropriate segments in the geospatial database and the future Utility SMS. However, facility mission changes (CATCODE/MDI) or utility changes (elimination of single point(s) of failure) within the requested area will require UDI adjustment to the utility’s MDI and adjustment resubmission, if necessary.

Go to Table of Contents 63 | P a g e

FY18-17 AFCAMP – Simplified Analysis of Alternatives Guidance

Introduction Projects that Require an SAoA Cost Savings Calculator and SAoA Template Instructions

Introduction

In many instances, a requirement may result in an increase to the Air Force’s installation foot print or may simply represent a large investment of funds in the short or long term where other options are possible. The requirement may consist of a new lease, renewal of an existing lease, a project that increases a building’s square footage (or builds a new one), or a project whose cost necessitates special scrutiny to ensure effective use of government funding. In most of these cases, several alternatives are available to satisfy a customer’s requirement. To ensure effective use of limited funds, an analysis should be performed to identify the best/least cost option that meets customer needs before a requirement or project is programmed and loaded into the Automated Civil Engineering System – Project Management (ACES-PM). This Simplified Analysis of Alternatives (SAoA) tool has been developed to efficiently and effectively accomplish that analysis and provide a mechanism to clearly demonstrate that the option proposed is in the best interests of both the Air Force and the taxpayer, without doing a more formal and in depth Economic Analysis. In those limited circumstances where a formal economic analysis is completed, those results may be used in lieu of an SAoA.

The SAoA analysis should include all potential Courses of Actions (COAs). Phasing the work requirement must be considered as one of the potential COAs. A Cost Savings (Savings to Investment Ratio [SIR]) calculation is required for each COA to determine the least costly or most efficient means of satisfying a requirement. Once the Cost Savings calculations and the SAoA template are completed, programmers should provide any other supporting documents such as Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs), real estate lease documents, land trust documents, analyses, Department of Defense (DD) Form 1391s, Military Construction Project Data, and other documents as needed. The SAoA template summarizes all COAs considered and the associated costs/savings and should suggest the COA that provides the best solution.

Projects that Require an SAoA

An SAoA, with cost savings calculations for each alternative, is mandatory for requirements or designs for requirements meeting any of the following conditions:

Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization (SRM) requirements exceeding $5.0M

Minor construction adding square footage

Renovation/consolidation efforts driven by mission or change in facility use (as opposed to degraded condition or cost savings)

Note that although leased space can be considered as an alternative in the SAoA, leases of facility space will not appear on (or be funded from) the Integrated Priority List.

Cost Saving Calculator and SAoA Template Instructions

Step 1: Begin Completing the SAoA Template Including Identification of Alternatives

Consider all potential methods to meet customer needs (e.g., lease, new construction, renovation) and complete the following sections as follows:

Mission Capability: Describe the impact that accomplishing this requirement has on Air Force capabilities.

Problem Statement: State the problem that needs to be solved. Use “status quo” problem statement if applicable (particularly if the mission is currently being accomplished).

Data: Provide all data applicable to the problem statement (e.g., number of personnel, square feet required, and cost).

Go to Table of Contents 64 | P a g e

Status Quo: Provide facility, pavement/utility, or asset condition indexes (CI) as applicable, and Operations and Maintenance (O&M) or lease cost info as appropriate.

Installation Space Data: Per the installations’ Space Management Plan, provide total amount of space authorized, used, and vacant for the required Category Code(s) (CATCODE(s)).

Alternatives Considered: Space for ten alternatives is provided, if required, but programmers should add more if needed. Input a brief description for each option considered.

Step 2: Fill out the Cost Savings Calculator Template

Complete a Cost Savings Calculator for each option considered, making sure to identify all potential costs and savings for each option.

Step 3: Fill out the Remainder of the SAoA Template

Complete the SAoA template using specific information for each option’s cost savings calculation as follows:

Alternatives Considered: Enter the SIR, Pay Back period, cost, and savings for each option based on the Cost Savings Calculator.

Alternative Selection: Select the best option for the Air Force. The selection should focus on cost while meeting customer needs/mission requirements. Provide a justification for the alternative selected. If the alternative selected does not have the lowest cost or highest savings, clearly explain why it is the best alternative.

Alternative Selection Impact: Provide any adverse impacts to the mission or work environment based on the alternative selected.

Pictures: Insert any pictures that help identify the problem and help illustrate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of a possible option.

Step 4: Program the Requirement

Program the selected alternative in ACES-PM and upload completed DD Form 1391, SAoA, and cost savings calculations per instructions in the Validation Documents section of this Playbook. Include supporting documentation demonstrating how the savings estimates used in the Cost Savings Calculator were determined. This is usually accomplished using a spreadsheet and explanatory notes. Ensure requirements are programmed per guidance in the ACES-PM Data Management Guide.

Go to Table of Contents 65 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Validation Documents SharePoint Upload Guidance

1. Upload Guidance Step 1: Locate Appropriate SharePoint Folder Step 2: Save Files with Appropriate Naming Convention Step 3: Upload Your Documents 2. Grouping Files, Filtering and Sorting 3. Procedure to Add MAJCOM or UNIQUE PN Metadata to Files Already Uploaded

1. Upload Guidance Throughout the business rules, a number of required documents are identified to validate scoring calculations, document agreements between different agencies, show project specific calculations, provide SAoAs, etc. These documents should be available or every requirement submitted as part of the Base Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (BCAMP) at an installation. Once all Major Command (MAJCOM) Comprehensive Asset Management Plans (MCAMP) are submitted, a draft Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (AFCAMP) is developed with a projected funding line drawn for fiscal year (FY) 16. Once the draft AFCAMP/Integrated Priority List (IPL) is published, validation of all projects above the funding line will begin. Installations and MAJCOMs will have one week from the date the draft IPL is published to upload any missing supporting documentation. After that time, any requirement that is missing validation documents (e.g., Minor Construction memo, Savings Calculations) will be removed from the IPL or have portions of their score zeroed out. Installations should upload any required documents in accordance with the steps outlined below.

Step 1: Save your files individually and provide appropriate metadata when doing so

IN DEVELOPMENTStep 2: Locate Appropriate SharePoint Folder Step 2a. Visit the Integration Program Group homepage on the Civil Engineering (CE) Portal and click on the Data Pulls link on the left, as shown in the figure below.

Figure 1: Screenshot of Data Pulls Folder Location on CE Portal

Step 2b. Then click on the FY16-17 AFCAMP Supporting Documents Link Below

Go to Table of Contents 66 | P a g e

Figure 2: Screenshot of FY16-17 AFCAMP Supporting Documents Folder Location on CE Portal

Step 2c. If you are uploading documents other than the completed prospectuses, click on “Validation Documents” If you are uploading your completed prospectus click on “Completed Prospectuses.” Prospectus templates, once uploaded by AFCEC can be found in Prospectus Template folder.

Figure 3: Screenshot of Completed Prospectuses and Validation Documents Folders on CE Portal

Step 3 Upload your document

Step 3a. Click on “+ Add document”

Go to Table of Contents 67 | P a g e

Figure 4: Screenshot of + Add document link within FY16-17 AFCAMP Supporting Documents, Validation Documents folder on CE Portal

Step 3b. Browse to location where document with proper naming convention (file name should start with project number then use appropriate suffix) is located, select document from your directory then click “Open”, then “OK.” Please do this ONE FILE AT A TIME to permit metadata (MAJCOM) to be associated with your uploaded files.

Figure 5: Add (Upload) Documents Screen on CE Portal

Step 3c. Choose MAJCOM from the drop down menu then select “Check In” That’s all that is required!

Go to Table of Contents 68 | P a g e

Figure 6: MAJCOM Dropdown box and Check In Box to Complete Project Upload on CE Portal

The Unique PN field is not required, but is provided if you if you wish to group a set of uploaded files for easy retrieval later (in lieu of folders). If used, recommend inserting your complete project number (including leading letters for your installation) in the Unique PN field. See “Grouping Files” below. We do not recommend using the Unique PN field unless it is required to associate related uploaded files. Additional information may be entered in the Comments field if desired.

2. Grouping Files, Filtering and Sorting: The additional optional field called “Unique PN” has been added to facilitate grouping files and then locating groups of files (in lieu of separate folders). By entering your project number into Unique PN when you upload a file, anyone can find all files related to the Unique PN by filtering on this field when viewing the file list. For grouping files AFCEC recommends using the project number in the Unique PN field as this is unique for each project regardless of base, and will also facilitate finding documents supporting project numbers shown on the Integrated Priority List, CTO, and Checkbook. In this way any type of document, SIR, 1391, etc supporting a given project can be found more easily by filtering at the validation document upload site. Files can be filtered by MAJCOM and by Unique PN. To filter uploaded documents, hold your cursor over the word “MAJCOM” or “Unique PN” in the heading above the list. When you do, a black triangle appears (drop down triangle) which you can click on revealing a drop down menu which permits filtering and sorting. This will facilitate locating related files or filtering by MAJCOM.

Go to Table of Contents 69 | P a g e

Figure 7: MAJCOM and Unique PN Column Headings on Validation Documents Page, Used for Filtering and Sorting

3. Procedure to Add MAJCOM or Unique PN Metadata to Files Already Uploaded

3a. Locate the file on the list (sort alphabetically is the simplest route)

Figure 8: Locating file to add MAJCOM and/or Unique PN data

3b. Hold cursor over project to make dropdown triangle appear on right, then select “Edit Properties” from drop down

menu.

Go to Table of Contents 70 | P a g e

Figure 9: Editing Properties of Uploaded project

3c. Fill in MAJCOM, (and/or Unique PN if desired), then select Save

Figure 10: Adding and Saving MAJCOM in Uploaded Project

Go to Table of Contents 71 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP – Troop Training Program Guidance

Background Programming for TTP Execution TTP Selection Integration into the IPL Execution of TTPs

Background

The Air Force has devoted significant funding, personnel, and equipment to the development of unique Civil Engineering (CE) Squadrons capable of executing robust contingency engineering operations. When these units are not deployed, they build and maintain skills through the completion of annual Troop Training Projects (TTPs). These TTPs are essential to the sustainment of contingency construction assets such as Rapid Engineer Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineer (RED HORSE) and the Construction and Training Squadron (CTS), and can provide the added benefit of executing additional Integrated Priority List (IPL) requirements at a lower cost than standard execution agents.

Programming for TTP Execution

Capitalizing on the additional capacity provided by organic execution agents hinges on the ability to identify projects that fulfill training requirements and are likely to score above the funding line on the IPL (meaning they address the greatest risk for the AF).

To identify a project as a potential TTP, the following steps must be completed:

Step 1: Installation CE personnel should email the Air Force Civil Engineer Center Comprehensive Program Development Branch (AFCEC/CPAD) Workflow (afcec.cpad.workflow@us.af.mil) with pertinent project information. The following information should be included:

Installation

Project number

Project name

Project description

Programmed amount

Point of contact (POC) name and phone number

Step 2: AFCEC/CPAD forwards the submittal to the appropriate POC at RED HORSE or CTS. The POC contacts the installation to discuss details of the project and whether or not it meets TTP requirements.

Step 3: AFCEC/CPAD emails the POC to confirm whether or not the project was approved as a potential TTP. If the project is approved, installation CE personnel program the requirement into the Automated Civil Engineering System – Project Management (ACES-PM) according to guidance in the ACES-PM Data Management Guide (make sure to include all necessary fields required for the Air Force Comprehensive Asset Management Plan [AFCAMP]/IPL). Include TTP execution in the Remarks section if the project is selected.

RED HORSE annual TTP requirements are available in the Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (CAMP) Playbook Toolkit (located on the right side of the Playbook page on the CE Portal) to help installations identify projects that would meet training needs. RED HORSE is equally interested in projects with and without complete designs. Submit projects for RED HORSE consideration based on potential selection as a TTP regardless of design status.

TTP Selection

Once the draft IPL has been created, RED HORSE and CTS will select approved projects from the list in the following priority order:

1. Above the fund line and validated as a potential TTP prior to IPL creation 2. Above the fund line with base/MAJCOM approval

Go to Table of Contents 72 | P a g e

If training requirements cannot be met through projects above the fund line due to the size of the projects, nature of the work, base/MAJCOM preference, or other reason, projects from below the fund line will be considered in priority order until all training requirements are met.

Integration into the IPL

Projects selected by RED HORSE and CTS will maintain the data determining their original project score on the IPL. All projects that were selected as TTPs and approved by the Integration Program Group (IPG), Installation Integration Board (I2B), and CE Council will be executed regardless of their position above or below the anticipated funding line.

Execution of TTPs

Once the final IPL (with TTPs) is approved by the CE Council, the projects will be executed in coordination with the AFCEC Execution Branch, RED HORSE/CTS units, and host bases.

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 or lose its authority based on its original score on the IPL. Projects that were above the funding line will still be centrally funded although executed through another method; those that originally scored below the line will not be funded from the centralized budget as part of the CTO. This does not preclude bases from submitting these latter projects in response to subsequent “calls” and obtaining alternate authority, or from obtaining authority and funding from other sources.

Go to Table of Contents 73 | P a g e

FY17-18 AFCAMP Playbook Acronyms Acronym Phrase

AAS Aircraft Arresting System

ACES Automated Civil Engineer System

Adj PCI Adjusted Pavement Condition Index

AF Air Force

AFCEC Air Force Civil Engineer Center

AFCOLS AF Common Output Level Standards

AFIMSC Air Force Installation and Mission Support Center

AFSBS Air Force Strategic Basing Structure

AMP Activity Management Plan

AOC Air Operations Center

APE Airfield Pavement Evaluation

ATAdv Authority to Advertise

ATAwd Authority to Award

ATO Air Tasking Order

BCA Business Case Analysis

BCCI Building Component Condition Index BI Built Infrastructure

BLCC Building Life Cycle Cost

BR Business Rules

CAMP Comprehensive Asset Management Plan

CAN Aircraft Classification Number

CAP Corrective Action Plan

CARM Critical Asset Risk Management

CATCODE Category Code

CE Civil Engineer

CFT Cross Functional Team

CI Condition Index

CLIN Contract Line Item Number

CoF Consequence of Failure

CSCI Component Section Condition Index

CTO Construction Tasking Order

CTS Construction & Training Squadron

CWE Current Working Estimate

DBCE Deputy Base Civil Engineer

DERA Defense Environmental Restoration Account

DMP Dorm Master Plan

DSW Direct Schedule Work

EMS Environmental Management System

EO Executive Order

EOY End Of Year

EQ Environmental Quality

ERP Environmental Restoration Program

ERR Emergent Requirement Request

ESP Emergency and Special Program

EESOH-MIS Enterprise Environmental Safety and Occupational Health - Management Information System

FES Fire Emergency Services

FGS Final Governing Standards

FHA Federal Highway Administration

FHA Family Housing

Go to Table of Contents 74 | P a g e

FHMP Family Housing Master Plan

FOD Foreign Object Debris

FSDC Fire Safety Deficiency Code

FY Fiscal Year

FYDP Future Year Defense Program

GSA General Services Administration

HAF Headquarters Air Force

HCP Housing Community Profile

HERC Heavy Engineering, Repair, and Construction

HVAC Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning

I2B Installation Integration Board

IDPK Unique Identifier Primary Key

IPG Integration Program Group

IPL Integrated Priority List

IRP Installation Restoration Program

IST Installation Support Team

ISWM Integrated Solid Waste Management

IWIMS Interim Work Information Management System

LHS Life, Health, and Safety

MAJCOM Major Command

MC Minor Construction

MDI Mission Dependency Index

MILCON Military Construction

MMRP Military Munitions Response Program

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NAVAIDS Navigational Aids

NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command

NI Natural Infrastructure

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology

NOV Notice of Violation

NRG Energy

OARS Obligation Adjustment Reporting System

OEBGD Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Documents

OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense

PA Programmed Amount

PB Presidential Budget

PCASE Pavement Transportation Computer-Assisted Structural Engineering

PCI Pavement Condition Index PCN Pavement Classification Number

PEC Program Element Code

PM Project Manager or Preventive Maintenance

PoF Probability of Failure

POM Program Objective Memorandum

PPBE Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution

PWS Performance Work Statement

R&M Restoration and Modernization

RED HORSE Rapid Engineers Deployable Heavy Operational Repair Squadron Engineer

REM Resource Efficiency Manager

RFF Request for Funds

RH RED HORSE

ROI Return on Investment

RP Real Property

RPMC Real Property Maintenance by Contract

Go to Table of Contents 75 | P a g e

RPO Real Property Officer

RPS Real Property Services

RPSUID Real Property Site Unique Identifier

RPUID Real Property Unique Identifier

RUL Remaining Useful Life

RWP Recurring Work Program

SAoA Simplified Analysis of Alternatives

SATOC Single Award Task Order Contract

SCI System Condition Index

SI Structural Index

SIR Savings to Investment Ratio

SKID Friction Index

SKM Sinclair Knight Mertz

SMS Sustainment Management System

SPB Simple Payback Period

SRM Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization

STI Steel Tank Institute

TNAP Transportation Network and Airfield Pavements

TCO Total Cost of Ownership

ToT Time on Target

TTP Troop Training Program

UCI Utility Condition Index

USACE US Army Corps of Engineers