Capital Project Planning Helps the Air Force Fly High

Construction simulation tool helps the Air Force go before Congress with the confidence it needs.

When it comes to the United States Air Force there is no room for error. This efficiency and philosophy not only holds true when directing combat missions for C-17 and C-5 aircraft taking the fight to the terrorists or KC-135 and KC-10 refueling aircrafts making sure F-15 and F-16 fighter jets make it across the ocean to fight the war. The Air Force is held to the same stringent requirements when it comes to designing and building new facilities for this branch of the military.

Dealing with one of the most stringent owners—the United States Congress—Norman Carron, chief of military construction for the Air Force Air Mobility Command, http://public.amc.af.mil/, located at Scott Air Force Base, Ill., about a 20 minute drive along Interstate 64 from downtown St. Louis, Mo., says he must be very succinct and accurate when he presents construction proposals for military bases and other facilities. “With Congress, once they lock you in on a budget, that is it, you are done, you get what you get,” Carron explains.

Congress not only demands complete answers to all of its inquiries, but it demands a full accounting of any expenditure that must be approved by the House or the Senate.

Congress is probably one of the most demanding corporate building owners the construction industry has ever encountered. The manner in which the Dept. of Defense (DOD) establishes construction projects, plus the rules of engagement placed on the services, make for a very convoluted process. Carron indicates each project is subjected to a congressional threshold. If you need to exceed that threshold, you have to go back to Congress for what’s called a reprogramming action, which is a very lengthy and painful process for those involved. Additionally, Congress does not produce more money for reprogramming actions, forcing the affected command to come up with sources within its program (usually bid savings from other projects) or else the reprogramming action never gets out of the Pentagon. Therefore, getting it right when the Military Construction Bill goes before Congress is absolutely crucial. Couple this demanding nature of Congress with the government’s requirements for national security and you have a very complicated process that requires only the most sophisticated technology.

To make matters even worse, the military finds itself struggling with a limited pool of skilled workers available at a given time and location, the coordination of multiple projects across the country simultaneously, and the small window in which materials can be delivered to a jobsite. In all, it’s safe to say accuracy is the chief goal for the Air Force Air Mobility Command’s capital construction program.

It is these requirements that have led the military to seek out solutions that reduce costs and ensure accuracy in its cost estimates presented to Congress.

That is exactly why the Air Force Air Mobility’s construction group only works with the finest contractors, designers, and construction professionals the industry has to offer. As part of its mission, the Air Force is working with a variety of vendors that can help it achieve the high standards it has set for itself as well as constantly reevaluate the tools incorporated in its operations.

Even though the Air Force Air Mobility’s construction group has experienced success with using software during various planning and production stages, Carron was still in need of a tool to help ensure estimates were more inline with what is presented to Congress. In fact, he admits he didn’t truly realize the impact of technology until he and a colleague sat in on a government facility working group meeting nearly two years ago and discovered the find of the century.

“The name of the presentation was ‘Construction Simulation’ which really peaked our interest,” says Carron. “After it was done, I can tell you that it was nothing like what either one of us were expecting and we both came to the conclusion that it was something that could really help us out (in regards to construction).”

The presentation from Sarah Slaughter, CEO of MOCA Systems Inc., www.mocasystems.com, Newton, Mass., would ultimately provide Carron and his team with the weapon needed to approach Congress with complete confidence in regards to its capital programs. Slaughter, a former professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), http://web.mit.edu/, Cambridge, Mass., demonstrated her expertise in helping simulate the costs associated with a complete construction project.

Simulation Success

During the planning phase of any facility, whether it’s a maintenance hangar for its C-17 aircraft or a physical fitness center for one of its bases, Carron’s team goes through a process of studying the actual requirements of the project, evaluating what will be needed by users of the facility, and how much it will cost to build the ideal facility. From there, they proceed to formulate an accurate cost estimate to bring in front of Congress for approval before actual construction begins.

“We typically use what is called a requirements document early on in the process,” says Carron. “This is a good basis to help us begin the actual design of the project while establishing a better cost estimate that we can then reapply to our programming documents, which eventually go before Congress. This helps us have more confidence in the cost estimate that is sitting in front of Congress.”

A typical requirements document is composed of information generated from programming documents—generally referred to as a DD Form 1391 in the military—as well as documents describing any additional work needed to execute the project, such as demolition or roadwork, and standard design guides for these structures. The first page of the DD Form 1391 is what Congress sees to validate the merit of a project as well as its cost. At the end of the requirements document development, it adjusts, if necessary, the programming documents (DD Form 1391) that started the process. In an ideal world, says Carron, the adjustment is made before the programming documents go to Congress.

This is the point where Carron saw an unique opportunity to leverage the technology presented to him by MOCA Systems. As a detailed performance management platform for capital programs, MOCA Systems’ Web-based technology helps simulate construction as it is performed on site as a way of being able to calculate the costs, duration, and resources required to complete the development project. MOCA brings computer-based analysis to a process that has traditionally been carried out through rule-of-thumb practices and manual calculations.

“During planning, we put in standard means and methods and standard crew sizes based on quantity of work and size of the work zone,” says MOCA’s Slaughter. “When the project is awarded, we update (these figures) to reflect the actual means used by the contractor. Once we have the takeoff figures, the means and methods, and staffing levels, we put it into our system and do the actual simulation of the performance of work on every component, by every worker, in every location.”

The simulation engine is populated with construction activities, providing design and construction teams with a new method for cost-schedule estimating and project control. Beginning in the capital programming stage and carrying through to design and construction, it works off of one baseline. This not only improves performance, but also provides a reliable audit trail, which can be highly valuable all in itself, explains Kevin Bernier, MOCA’s senior vice president.

“When you think about government clients, not only do they need to make the most out of tax dollars, they need that accountability and audit trail as well,” says Slaughter. “We are able to write that quickly and seamlessly via the service-based model. We don’t license the technology directly to the Air Force, rather we provide services to them by augmenting their current design and construction services.”

While this may initially appear to be what a typical project-management application provides on some levels, Carron begs to differ. “I think the primary difference between this and a project management tool is the excellence in how a construction schedule is produced. Other (programs) may produce it, but not as early on in the process,” says Carron. “Typical contractors attempt to do this but even they do not do a good job at building a construction schedule, in my experience. With this tool, you know exactly (the resources) it will take to complete this project at the earliest stage possible.”

For a typical project, Carron will feed the information needed to complete a requirements document to MOCA, which proceeds to input it into a database that has precompiled lists of various procedures, material costs, and labor rates associated with construction projects in any area of the country. From there, MOCA produces a resource-loaded schedule that is automatically integrated with the cost. This creates an atmosphere that allows users to do cost schedule trade-off analysis during the design/development stage and forecast the completion date and cost to complete.

MOCA executives say the background research conducted at MIT by dozens of graduate students performing more than 65,000 hours of time and motion studies of construction activities helped develop the preliminary workflow mapping. The company then commercialized the research through hundreds of projects to develop the software to simulate and replicate tasks completed on a typical jobsite with contractors, specialty trades, and others involved in a construction project. It is this database of construction activities that provides the backbone for helping complete baseline cost estimates integrated with resource-loaded schedules.

“We use MOCA in the very early stages of a project to help us refine the cost estimate,” says Carron. “If they have a certain type of facility in their database, they can help us identify areas where the costs are really going out of sight (in the estimate). They can start picking apart the estimate and telling us the driving factors for the high costs.”

For example, MOCA’S model helped reduce the cost estimate for a physical fitness center at Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland, from $34 million down to $25 million.

“MOCA identified various drivers (for the high costs) and we realized that we were putting a lot of optional things in the fitness center—bells and whistles that we really didn’t need,” says Carron. “They helped us identify this early before we went to Congress. The way it stands now, we are very confident Capital Hill will approve the estimate and that we can build it for that cost.”

The Air Force is currently using MOCA’s technology for multiple projects at Andrews Air Force Base, home of Air Force One, including its mission planning center.

“We also use MOCA in a hangar project in Dover, Del., for the C-17 aircraft,” adds Carron. “We are currently doing the requirements document and as of right now it looks as if the costs were going way out of sight. The MOCA technology made suggestions in relation to correcting code violations, ways to replace areas of the roof, etc. We are trying to increase the project by about $6 million and a lot of it is based on the MOCA model.”

Added Benefits

“The cost and accuracy of this tool helps us go to Capital Hill with great confidence,” says Carron. “They can provide this information to us very early on in the process, whereas an architectural/engineering (A/E) firm runs early cost estimates off of what we call parametric models. These are generated based on total square footage in a facility or linear feet of electrical line, for example. This model does not account for a hike in construction material prices or adjust for various labor environments. Labor in Washington, D.C., for example, is much greater than labor costs in Arkansas.” The MOCA model helps the Air Force consider all factors early on in the process.

One of the most attractive features of the technology is the fee involved, which is generally less than 1% of the total construction cost. Carron has dealt with A/E firms with fees that cost between 5-15% of the total construction cost. He remarks this is a great value to the taxpayers for the return on investment in terms of time savings and overall expenditures.

The detailed material takeoff generated by MOCA’s technology reveals the duration of time a particular trade will be on a jobsite. With this, it’s almost immediately known how long it will take to build a facility and the resources needed.

“When we start designing, we can actually help the A/E firm with the data generated by MOCA,” says Carron. “Sometimes A/E firms tend to over design aspects of a plan. With this technology we can bring them back into the fold and show them the factors that are driving up the costs on a project.”

He has big plans for using MOCA’s technology on future projects as well. Carron says fully utilizing its capabilities at multiple points throughout the project phase will save the government and taxpayers a considerable amount of money and time. In terms of evaluating proposals, he believes the technology can help them determine what is driving up the costs for various bidders. This will allow them to suggest areas of modification and recalculate costs.

“MOCA’s model generates a detailed construction schedule as well, predicting which contractors should be on site at a specific time,” says Carron. “For example, the MOCA model will indicate the number of electricians that should be on site on a certain day. If that number is not there, the model predicts the contractors will not stay on schedule. But the model also takes it one step further, detailing what is needed by the contractors in order to stay on schedule.”

One area that Carron anticipates this technology can make a real difference is in the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program from the DOD.

Announced in July 2001 and aimed at saving an estimated $3.5 billion annually, the program essentially helps match facilities to specific forces. In other words, the initiative focuses on closing and/or relocating bases across the country on an as-needed basis (e.g. number of troops in certain areas).

“Right now we are in the programming and planning stages for BRAC,” says Carron. “We study bases all over (the world) and have this model up at the Pentagon that outlines the costs and resources needed to either close or relocate a certain base. We are kind of out there shooting from the hip with the program right now trying to provide the best estimates we can and I truly believe the MOCA technology would be invaluable in helping us with our site surveys and getting the planning programming just right.”

Obtaining greater value from each budget dollar for the Air Force needs to essentially begin at the earliest budgeting stage. Using this technology not only helps accomplish this goal, according to Carron, but also helps the Air Force establish clear and consistent benchmarks across its full range of bases.        

“I urged officials at the Pentagon to get MOCA involved in one of our program review management meetings to give a presentation to my counterparts around the Air Force,” adds Carron. “I sat back to observe their reactions and you could tell that everyone at the table recognized how powerful this can be and there is definite interest from everyone that makes the decisions within the Air Force.”

For further information:

http://www.mocasystems.com/company/news.htm

•