1 / 15

Army Implementation of Performance-Based Contracting

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

benjamin
Download Presentation

Army Implementation of Performance-Based Contracting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  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 Army’s 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 pagehttp://aec.army.mil/usaec/cleanup/pbc00.html

  13. Army Implementation of PBC BACKUP SLIDES

  14. Army Implementation of PBC PBC Accomplishments

  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

More Related