SAFER AND SMARTER


FIGURE 1 CWC Treaty target for completion: April 2012


Pine Bluff Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (PBCDF)


Anniston Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (ANCDF)


Umatilla Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (UMCDF)


Tooele Chemical Agent Disposal Facility (TOCDF)


HQ / Legacy Sites 2008


OPERATIONS CLOSURE OPERATIONS CLOSURE


2010 2012


4,530 DAYS | $6B SAVINGS 2014


2016 CALENDAR YEAR


2005 DOD ESTIMATE ACTUAL


2005 DOD ESTIMATE ACTUAL


2005 DOD ESTIMATE ACTUAL


2005 DOD ESTIMATE ACTUAL


the program faced many


technical,


regulatory and political risks, and an increased projected cost of approximately $24 billion, bringing the program under the scrutiny of both Congress and the Government Accountability Offi ce.


930 days $790M Savings 1,170 days $1,051M Savings


T e CMA assessed the feasibility of con- verting to a fi xed-price contracting model. However, this assessment revealed that cost-reimbursable


contracts 1,350 days $1,607M Savings 1,080 days $2B Savings 2018 2020 $477M Savings continued


Completion of the safe destruction of the stockpile three months ahead of the CWC deadline of April 29, 2012, resulted in a projected cost avoidance to the taxpayer of approximately $6 billion. (SOURCE: CMA)


to be the most appropriate vehicle for completing the remaining operations and closure of these facilities, due to the many risks surrounding the program as well as the congressional mandate for maximum protection to the workforce, public and the environment. T e CMA continued to evaluate potential modifi ca- tions that would maximize performance and cost effi ciencies with no trade-off s in the safety of the workforce, public and environment.


United States became a signatory to the CWC, an international treaty requiring 100 percent destruction of the chemical agent munitions by April 2007, later extended to April 29, 2012.


With based


each of facilities the in four incineration- diff erent phases


of its life cycle (design, construction, equipment design, installation, testing and startup), the Army continued to face collaboration issues among the system contractors, which led to further schedule


slippages and continued cost escalation.


Increased environmental activism, litigation,


and tightening of U.S.


Environmental Protection Agency standards and state regulations also contributed to unforeseen delays.


With minimal likelihood that the four incineration-based facilities could meet the extended CWC deadline by continu- ing on this path, the focus had to change from annual performance to completion of agent destruction operations and closure of the facilities. T ere was also a need to motivate multiple contractors to work collaboratively and aggressively while maintaining a strong emphasis on safety and environmental concerns.


CHANGING THE DYNAMIC While the stockpile continued to age,


Changing requirements and stakeholder expectations led to modifi cations to the design of plants and equipment, in turn leading to frequent contract changes and


unsustainable schedule slippage. cost growth and


In 2006, the Army decided to estab- lish life-cycle schedules and use them as the basis to negotiate required con- tractor


resources, target cost and fee


pools, as opposed to continuing annual levels-of-eff ort negotiations. Life-cycle contracting now allowed the contrac- tors to take on complete responsibility for the entire project scope, from opera- tions through closure. T is change in strategy was possible at this time due to the maturity of the risk identifi cation process, and the availability of historical processing rates and reliable and audit- able schedules and costs, none of which had been available previously.


T is eff ective risk management tac-


tic provided CMA the opportunity to include multiple performance incen- tives


in contracts, which encouraged


contractors to complete the safe, timely and cost-eff ective conclusion of opera- tions and closure of facilities. T e CMA


102 Army AL&T Magazine


April–June 2013


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168