Captain Britain
So I’ve been slightly ‘under the RADAR’ since we arrived Stateside I guess. That has absolutely nothing to do with my work – more lack of it. Since we landed we have been through many a bureaucratic system which, when meeting the stupid foreigner, is akin to the unstoppable force meeting an immoveable object. Not a lot happens fairly slowly. However – I am now a fully fledged member of the office, with photos in the foyer to prove it and a modicum of responsibility to keep me out of trouble. I also have a Nickname, ‘Captain Britain.’
I will echo Henry in saying that this is fairly light on the engineering because, being a foreigner, I am still not allowed to go on site (an issue which is currently being resolved) however what I have been given will still be a fairly important piece to the overall programme.
The Programme – East Campus.
There is a lot of work in the area of camp which used to be a golf course, but is now known as East Campus. Currently there are 3 separate projects going on which are in various stages of construction, from 7 % – 90% complete. The largest of these is worth around $650m and the smallest is around the $50m mark. There was a contract awarded last Friday for another project, again at the $50m mark which makes the current programme close to $1Bn…so far. The interesting thing about all these projects is that each one is completely separately funded, procured and built. The reason being that government can’t politically allocate enough money in one funding cycle to build a whole campus. The overall strategy to mitigate this has been to procure each project separately and bid on separate funding cycles to senate for more money once it has been proved that the last chunk of funding has been properly managed and spent. This means that although there is an overall vision for what the campus will look like, there is really no way to say that it will all receive funding and be completed as imagined. This way of working has also led to huge issues with scheduling. With three large projects in various stages of construction in such close vicinity (one project also structurally ‘ties in’ to another) there have been inevitable conflicts in space and resources.
There is currently a ‘Master Integrated Schedule’ (MIS) which is supposed to help identify cross project conflicts before they happen, however much of the information is out of date and individual project managers are reluctant to release their un-approved schedules. The other issue is that the contract for provision of the scheduling service is due to expire shortly.
What I have been asked to do.
I have been tasked with getting the MIS running as it should, ie as a useful forecasting tool, and to deal with the issue of the expiring contract. What I proposed is that there be some more engagement with the Area Office (who are separate to the office I am working for, although still the same organisation. Think 2 Sqns in one Coy) and that the product be given grace to undergo a few iterations in order that tweaks can be made and input gained from the end users so that an accurate and, more importantly, useful tool can be produced. I also got someone with more clout than I to request the individual project schedules be released to the contractor so that a rough integrated schedule can be produced. I have called a meeting next week to discuss inter project logic ties so that any changes to one project will highlight impacts to neighbouring projects. I am hopeful that this will nudge the MIS in the right direction and that in a few iterations a useful forecasting schedule will drop out, rather than a few disconnected, out of date and inaccurate reports which the Project Managers view as an embuggerance to contribute to.
The other piece is to extend the contract that is used to produce the forecasting schedule. The contract itself is a Task Order (one of many), which is a part of a base contract for ‘scheduling, estimating and programmatic support.’ The base contract was for 5 years. The desire is to extend it although there is no specific clause to allow this (however the missing clause is referenced elsewhere in the contract). This issue has been referred to the Policy Department for a decision. If it can’t be extended that leaves until 25 May to push a new Task Order through. This will be a clever move because although the Base Contract will have expired, if a Task Order under the Base Contract is enacted prior to the final date of the Base Contract the Task Order and all money allocated to it is still usable until the Task Order itself expires. The money still remaining on the Base Contract is around $2m so I have drafted a Statement of Works for scheduling, estimating and programmatic support, under the provision of the base contract, and attached the $2m to it. This will accompany a Request for Proposal (like an ITT, but to the Contractor named on the Base Contract. Essentially asking the Contractor if they would like $2m to continue what they are already doing) to the Contractor who will then submit an estimate based on what I have asked them to do in the Statement of Works. I am also required to complete an Independent Government Estimate which needs to be within 10% of the contractor estimate in order to progress the application. More on this at a later date.
So what was all that about?
With the Base Contract expiring it appears to me that USACE wants the provision of service to continue, but a) missed out a clause allowing the extension of the base contract or b) forgot to put another Base Contract out for tender. Essentially, what I am doing (all legal by the way) is exploiting a technicality which will allow for the provision of services to USACE by the Contractor even though the Base Contract under which the services are provided has expired.
Other Stuff.
A letter, stating that I am a good egg, is in the pipeline which will hopefully allow me access to site. From there I will be able to start getting some more engineeringy posts up. Photos might be an issue. If I don’t get on site then you will all know that I am not, in fact, a good egg.
For Ollie’s Infantry shooty delectation; today I have been shooting with a buddy. He bought along a nice selection, including an FN SCAR and AR-15. Ages on the range varied from 8 – 68yrs. All good clean family fun.
Truck MPG – TBC; suspected low. Am hopeful it won’t be a DO 7.C fail in CPR.
Photos.
Holdfast Training Services Trial Blog 
Captain Britain – great to hear from you dude!
I haven’t got over the polar extremes in yours and my blog content. I am worrying about a bit of concrete in the top of a pile and you are considering budgeting cycles at the United States of America Senate level. The blog spectrum is from minute Tactical to national Strategic considerations , talk about diversity!
What you are doing sounds great, and albeit pretty high level stuff, the basics of an integrated schedule is something every project should have. At your portfolio level or my capping beam level it is equally vital to plan and resource the activities by bringing the right people together at the right time – and that is the key point you seemed to have nailed.
I am amazed that there are structural linkages between project stages, perhaps that is a way of forcing funding approval for future stages? Seems more likely to cause issues as you suggest. I wonder why the project as a whole could not be a set of discrete building activities (ally the London 2012 Olympics project) and be joined at the hip by name and not by physical structural elements? I suspect this would cost more if the buildings are close to each other, but the de-risking of uncertainty in approval and greater ownership of compartmentalised structures must be able to realise cost benefits too?
All sounds good and best of luck producing the cost estimate – Laing O’Rourke do a similar thing to second guess tender bids. Sounds sensible and, unlike the Royal Engineers, the recording of data from all of their projects is so thorough it becomes possible to produce sensible estimates. If USCAE do similar, which I am sure they do, you should be able to sit inside 10% margin, or if not come up with some provisional sums to cover it if you are going to be over!
Hey buddy – thanks for the comment! I’ve been watching the blogs going up with an element of ‘green eyed monster’ going on. You guys seem to be doing a lot of good stuff, its been quite frustrating to date. I think the door is finally starting to creak open though so I’m hoping to get more into the weeds! (Although this tasker is one that I am keen to retain ownership of as it seems like it could tick some DO boxes, especially with having responsibility for a pot of money. I should also be involved with managing the ‘burn rate’ & invoicing the contractor when it comes to time to pay) Its amazing though, the range of ‘stuff’ that goes up here!
The structural tie between the two projects was less to do with securing funding and more to do with usability. At the moment there are a lot of security measures in place which have to be negotiated during day to day business as you move around buildings. The intent is to reduce this and have a single point of entry where all the sy checks take place and then freedom to move around the buildings in question. This means not exiting the building to get to the other – hence the need to tie them structurally.
With regards to discrete building activities, that is what is happening in the main. Construction is programmed to take place in one are, followed by the next . however with the overlap in funding cycles and project timelines it means the inevitability of concurrent activity. The other, and probably more key, issue is that the funding secured doesn’t include provision for linking the utilities between the projects. Whereas something like a Taylor Wimpey housing development, or (I’m not sure but am guessing) the Olympic development would sort all the services out in the first place and then construct on top this hasn’t been the case here.
Provisional sums! If the Independent Government Estimate (IGE) doesn’t match the contractor proposal within 10% then its a no-go (back to the proverbial drawing board). From my IGE I will produce a Price Objective Memorandum (POM). Once the proposal is rx’d, and if within the 10% I then enter into negotiation with the Contractor to settle the final price, from which a Price Negotiated Memorandum drops out (PNM). This is essentially what USACE will pay the Contractor.
The clock is ticking, and because I am attaching more than $500k to the contract it has all sorts of hoops to get through before 25 May. Fortunately, I have got quite good at jumping through hoops since arrival here!
Good entry blog Brad and nice response Damian! I would note that the physical connection between two buildings does not constitute structural linkage unless it acts as a load path i.e. the strucutres are seperate albeit that the buildings are not!structures
Hola B.R.A.D. (Dora the Explorer is American and she always speaks Spanish),
I’m with Damo, this is high level stuff. I’ll stick to watching concrete dry and crossing my fingers that the digger doesn’t sink an deeper in the cofferdam!!!
Could you please give us an idea of the sort of size, design, construction method of the buildings on the camp. What will the buildings be used for?
If anyone from the RSME is reading, do they know how much the new buildings on camp cost as a comparison?
In case you’re unable to get any site photos you could simply start a link of ‘BRAD with guns’ to keep us engaged. I would most like to see you firing an Uzi from the waist.
Brad, disappointed by a lack of gratuitous images of you on the range, starting to believe its a ruse.
On the building entry affair, we went to the 9/11 memorial (worth a visit) and there was talk about the lack of interconnectivity between the various secret squirrel departments pre 9/11. Beyond all the various red tape and changing of attitudes required, it is interesting how something as simple as allowing an operative to walk down a corridor to speak to another, albeit from a different department, is vital in improving that potential for data sharing. Especially if the alternative is to head out of the air conditioned space, through two security doors and they have a cultural loathing of walking.
Hey Ollie,
the buildings vary in size, use and cost. The most costly ($650m+) is essentially a large warehouse (single storey steel frame on top of shallow pad foundations).
Recently added to the programme is a $40m carpark. 9 storey. 450000 Gross Sq Ft. (42,000 Gross Sq m) c. 1400 spaces. 308 x 180 ft. (94m x 55m) Post tensioned cast in place concrete. This will break ground in summer and i am hopeful to be a part of the project delivery team.
There have been issues with building on camp. The security is posture is particularly aggressive; there are numerous VCPs, personnel are all subject to stringent security and there is also a specialist team who inspect construction operations to ensure the end product satisfies the end users requirements. Remember when we went and visited Battersea and there was the turnstyle thing? I got the impression there that it was 50% H&S 50% Site sy. Here there is something similar which is 150% sy, -50% H&S. (I might get into H&S ‘Merca style in another blog.)
The point is that all these frictions have had their impacts on site in one way or another. These include procurement, where background checks are conducted on potential contractors which are so in depth they look at the owning / controlling company and asses susceptibility to foreign influence, through to checking vehicles arriving on site with stores.
The good news is, though, that as of this afternoon i am officially allowed on the site! As of Wednesday however i am OOO on Officer Professional Development.
Hi
Brad – you must ensure that you chase down all engineering knowledge and applications aspects that you can. It is easy in America to get swept along with management.
You are training against Sub-Attributes and not Development Objectives. DOs are now dead.
Enjoy the States I did in 1982!!!!
Kind Regards