U.S.%20ARMY%20AUDIT%20AGENCY

1
Army Implementation of Performance-Based
Contracting
29 Jun 05 Mr. Jim Daniel Chief, Cleanup
Division, USAEC
2
Army Implementation of PBC
Why Use PBC?

• Performance-Based Contracting is intended to
  improve cost and schedule performance without
  compromising cleanups that are protective of
  human health and the environment
• Lower risk of cost growth
• Accelerates cleanup / property transfer
• Can be aligned to exit strategies or used to
  optimize systems
• Cost effective / lower remediation costs

3
Army Implementation of PBC
PBC for Environmental Cleanup

• Goal is for Contractor to achieve one or more of
  the following performance objectives for each
  site identified in the PWS
• Remedy in Place with successful 5-year review
• Response complete
• Long-term monitoring with successful 5-year
  review
• Operating and performing successfully (OPS)
• Implementation of ramp down and/or exit strategy

4
Army Implementation of PBC
Metrics

• Installation Restoration Program PBC goals
• FY03 3-5 of total program achieved 9 (37M)
• FY04 30 of total program achieved 36 (141M)
• FY05 50 of total program ? GOAL 200M
• FY06 60 of total program
• FY07 70 of total program

5
Army Implementation of PBC
Results of the PBC Initiative

• Since 2000, Army has awarded more than 30 PBCs
• 300 million in contract capacity
• Range in value from 700,000 to 52.4 million
• In FY04, 36 of Armys restoration program was
  put on performance-based contracts (140
  million)
• Contracts in 24 states and all 10 EPA Regions
• FY05 Summary
• 130M applied to PBC through May 05
• 9 new PBC awards through May 05
• 16 others at some stage of procurement

6
Army Implementation of PBC
Army PBC Awards to Date
Hawaii
BRAC Active
Installation locations are approximate
7
Army Implementation of PBC
The Army PBC Process
Preliminary Screening / On-Site Evaluation
Draft and/or refine PWS/RFQ and IGE
Is installation good PBC candidate?
Is there agreement on the PWS/RFQ and IGE?
Y
Seek input on PWS/RFQ and IGE
N
N
Can additional activities help candidacy?
Is there a technically acceptable proposal?
Y
Release RFQ
Conduct additional activities to prepare for PBC
in future
Y
Y
Bidders Site Visit
Award PBC
N
N
Proceed with current path forward
Conduct technical evaluation
Post-Award / Contract Implementation
Regulator Involvement
8
Army Implementation of PBC
The Future of the Army Initiative

• Continue current path for active and BRAC sites
• Nearly 30 evaluations or procurement actions
  on-going
• Evaluate viability for use in other areas
• Military Munitions Response Program
• SI pilot
• Regional Long-term Management Contracts
• Slow to develop (demand has to mature)
• Continue to learn from awarded contracts

9
Army Implementation of PBC
Observations and Challenges from the Past Four
Years

• Project planning needs to be a team effort
• Clearly defined endpoints and objectives are
  required
• Including regulators throughout the process
  significantly increases acceptance
• Knowledgeable Contracting Officer and Contracting
  Officer Representative are required
• Timely input of evaluations of contractor
  performance into database is essential

10
Army Implementation of PBC
Observations and Challenges from the Past Four
Years

• Competition is key to a fair price
• Contractor transition is critical
• There is a short-term impact to the installation
  program during the transition to a PBC

11
Army Implementation of PBC
Continuing Challenges

• Balancing contractor risk, cost for the work, and
  desire to achieve site closeout against the
  uncertainties
• Ensuring sufficient contractor pool
• Determining appropriate performance objectives

12
Army Implementation of PBC
Resources
Performance-Based Contracting web page
http//aec.army.mil/usaec/cleanup/pbc00.html
13
Army Implementation of PBC
BACKUP SLIDES
14
Army Implementation of PBC
PBC Accomplishments
  Installations Sites CTC (M) IGE (M) Contract Award (M) CTC - Contract (M) IGE - Contract (M)
FY01-02 Fort Gordon, Fort Leavenworth 39 42.200 42.200 39.167 3.033 3.033
FY03 Fort Dix, Fort Jackson, Lake City AAP, Ravenna AAP, Sierra Army AD 70 123.680 117.300 98.795 24.885 18.505
FY04 Aberdeen PG - Graces Quarters, Aberdeen PG - Other Aberdeen Areas, Fort Detrick, Fort Irwin, Fort Rucker, Holston AAP, Hunter AAF, Iowa AAP, Louisiana AAP, Milan AAP, Reserves, Riverbank AAP, Rock Island, Fort Leonard Wood 147 269.351 207.616 165.903 103.448 41.713
FY05 Hawaii Installations, Camp Navajo 17 12.38 9.06 10.08 2.3 -1.02
               
Cumulative Cumulative 273 447.61 376.17 313.94 133.67 62.23
Cost Avoidance on all PBCs (based on CTC) Cost Avoidance on all PBCs (based on CTC)   29.9        
Cost Avoidance on all PBCs (based on IGE) Cost Avoidance on all PBCs (based on IGE)     16.5      
15
Army Implementation of PBC
FY05 Planned Procurements

• Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD (3 procurements)
• Alaska installations (Fort Richardson / Haines
  Terminal) (2 procurements)
• Camp Bullis / Fort Sam Houston, TX
• Camp Crowder, MO / Fort Chaffee, AR
• Dugway Proving Ground, UT
• Fort Drum, NY
• Camp Navajo, AZ (Awarded)
• Fort Gillem, GA
• Fort Knox, KY

• Fort Meade, MD
• Fort Pickett, VA
• Joliet Army Ammunition Plant, IL
• Hawaii installations (Tripler / Schofield
  Barracks) (Awarded)
• Longhorn AAP, TX
• Los Alamitos / Camp Roberts, CA
• Picatinny Arsenal, NJ
• Ravenna AAP, OH
• Redstone Arsenal, AL
• Soldier System Center, MA