Air Combat Commands Transformation of Environmental Remediation

1
Air Combat Commands Transformation of
Environmental Remediation

• Margaret C. Patterson
• HQ ACC/CEVRP

2
U.S. Air ForceMajor Commands

• Air Education and Training Command (AETC)
• Air Combat Command (ACC)
• Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC)
• Air Mobility Command (AMC)
• Air Force Space Command (SPACECOM)
• Pacific Air Forces (PACAF)
• US Air Forces in Europe (USAFE)
• Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC)

3
Headquarters Air Combat Command
Headquartered at Langley AFB in Hampton,
Virginia
4
ACC Environmental Restoration Program

• 674 Total Sites
• 273 Active Sites
• 401 Closed Sites
• 45 Installation and HQ personnel
• Two major service centers
• Annual Budget app. 50M

TOTAL PROGRAM
674 Sites
5
Background

• Langley AFB VA
• Across the road from new
• world class fitness center
• Along main entrance road

6
Future First Planning
A process that fuses base development planning
with environmental cleanup to optimize land
use.
7
Future First Planning (F2P)

• What is it?
• Cross functional approach to better utilize
  installation land
• Fuses facility construction and environmental
  clean-up with future land use planning
• Supports construction considerations on
  open/active restoration sites

• Why?
• AF land is limitedfuture needs must be the first
  step in all planning
• Old think restore, cap, post no trespassnew
  think future need

• How?
• Command Implementation Plan
• Contract through AFCEE, San Antonio TX
• Inventory open ERP sites and base development
  plans
• Implement at applicable sites command-wide
• Pilot Projects at 4-5 bases in FY04

8
Future First Planning

• What weve accomplished
• Identified, awarded, and executed three pilot
  projects
• Expanded the program for FY05
• Where we are
• Institutionalize via Wing Infrastructure
  Development Outlook (WINDO)
• Continuing Education (Video, Environmental
  Symposium, Conferences)
• Process improvement
• Part of Integrated Planning Initiative

9
Integrated Planning - Zoning
10
Environmental Program Perspective

• For some, no need for change
• Have achieved good results
• Presently on-target to meet Defense Planning
  Guidance goals
• Executing the current program with 80-90 contract
  actions every year

11
Performance Based Restoration (PBR)

• What is it?
• Target Site closure
• Minimizes contract actions
• PBR defines what is to be achieved, not how

• Why?
• Historically, emphasis on process, not progress
• Cost overruns and schedule slippages

• How?
• Command Acquisition Plan
• Targets seven major acquisitions across the
  command
• All actions will be performance based and fixed
  price
• Utilize private sector expertise to achieve
  desired end-state

Objective Close out the legacy restoration
program
12
Step One Whiteman AFB, MOFY04 Effort

• PBC
• 26 Sites
• 2
• 22
• 26 Sites
• 5.7 Mil

• Tasks
• Investigation/Study
• Landfill Maintenance/Repair
• ROD
• Sites Closed
• Total Costs

• Pre-PBC
• 17 Sites
• 1
• 4
• 4 Sites
• 5.6 Mil

• Additional Cost Savings
• If awarded in separate TOs (traditional approach)
  the costs would exceed 7.1 Mil
• Activities of 26 sites were consolidated into 1
  Task Order compared to 10 or more TOs. Internal
  Management Cost Savings!
• Accelerated Schedule Achievements
• 11 Sites projected to achieve regulatory closure
  over a year ahead of schedule
• 9 Sites projected to achieve regulatory closure 6
  months ahead of schedule

13
FY05 PBR Strategy
Cannon Dyess Minot D-M Holloman

• Aggregate closeouts into one contract action
• Involves LTM and NFA actions only
• Ellsworth/Mt Home/Nellis/Offutt combined effort
• Primarily targets groundwater issues
• Utilizes life cycle cost analysis
• Dont just optimize relook the remedy
• Langley, Shaw, Seymour Johnson as stand alone
  multi-site, multiple year actions
• Target Langley for delisting

14
PBR Results

• Five Base Closeout
• Optimize LTM Eliminate 1/3 of LTM within 3 yrs
• Target site closeout on 40 sites
• Near-term investment, mid-term savings
• Seymour Johnson
• Regulatory closure of 16 sites with insurance
• 20 Reduction in schedule vs. government estimate
• Cost savings of 35 against FY04 Cost to Complete
  (CTC)
• Shaw AFB
• Regulatory closure/source reduction 14 sites
  w/insurance
• 40 Reduction in schedule vs. government estimate
• 42 Cost savings against FY04 CTC
• Langley
• Site Closure of 15 sites with insurance
• Develop draft delisting package (final contract
  task)
• 100 Increase in schedule (FY 07 to FY09
  completion)
• Some funding reallocated for other PBR efforts
• 57 Cost savings against FY04 CTC

15
Actions Underway

• Ellsworth/Mt Home/Nellis/Offutt combined effort
  (Four base contract)
• Primarily targets groundwater issues
• Utilizes life cycle cost analysis
• Dont just optimize relook the remedy
• Prep Avon Park, Barksdale, and Beale for FY06-07
• When complete
• Significant reduction in number of contract
  actions per year
• More focus on project control and management
• Clear program objectives identified upfront

16
Execution

• Organize for Success
• Business lines
• (Triad/PBR, F2P/ Future Rqts)
• Engaged management approach
• Stabilize the Structure
• Formalizing internal processes
• Automated document flow
• Automated project tracking
• Set the Strategy
• Near-term objectives
• Strategic Plan for the program

17
Today

• Triad
• The mechanism for performing site investigations
• Focus on remediation objectives not completion of
  RI
• Performance Based Restoration
• Prep Avon Park, Barksdale, and Beale for FY06-07
• Look at Geographically Separated Units
• Design, Build, Remediate, Restore (DBR2) contract
  vehicle
• Future First Planning
• Link remediation goals to integrated planning
  needs
• More partnered approach with contract support
  community

18
CEVR Organization Chart