![](media/image1.png){width="0.4895833333333333in"
height="0.6in"}**VALUE ANALYSIS IN THE NPS**

**Description:** Value Analysis (VA) is a process of arriving at an
optimal solution to a complex issue through a structured and reasoned
analysis of the factors and functions related to the issue.

**Goal:** The goal of Value Analysis is to provide a structured process
that ensures that

-   Essential functional requirement are met

-   All viable alternatives are considered

-   Factors used to evaluate them are sound and fully considered

-   All alternatives are tested equally against these factors

-   Solutions are cost effective on an initial and life-cycle cost basis

-   Benefit to cost relationships were considered

-   Independent second opinions and perspectives were considered

-   Rationale for decisions is clearly documented.

The overarching goal is that everyone can feel confident that the best
solution, the best value was, in fact, achieved.

**Process:** The traditional Value Analysis process involves the
gathering of necessary background material, usually by the office
requesting the Value Analysis; a Value Analysis workshop with a 5-7
person team led by a VA facilitator; an oral presentation and written
report of the findings of the Value Analysis session. The composition of
the value study team is tailored to meet project requirements, but is
typically composed of people familiar with the project, as well as
independent team members who bring perspective and insight to the study.
It is also an ideal time to make sure sustainable concepts and other NPS
policy issues are considered.

During the Value Analysis workshop the facilitator will lead the study
team through the seven steps of the Value Analysis Job Plan:

-   Information Phase

-   Function Analysis Phase

-   Creativity Phase

-   Evaluation Phase

-   Development Phase

-   Recommendation Phase

-   Implementation Phase

Essential functions for the project are studied, cost estimates are
analyzed, and stakeholders identified. Creative alternatives to
providing the essential function are brainstormed and those alternative
solutions evaluated. Evaluation factors are developed and a structured
evaluation method typically used. Choosing by Advantages (CBA) is one
evaluation method utilized by the NPS, but weighted factors may also be
used. The relative importance of the advantages or benefits of each
alternative are weighed and considered in a cost, preferably life cycle
cost, context. Recommendations are made by the study team, and the
client group e.g. park superintendent and staff, design team then must
consider which recommendations can be implemented. The client shall
address the rationale for not implementing any value study
recommendations.

**Topics for Study:** Value Analysis can be applied to decisions of any
scale, from broad scope conceptual plans for a park, to decisions
concerning building program, to selection of flooring, or to decisions
concerning administrative issues such as reorganization of an office.
Law mandates value studies for NPS projects over half a million dollars.

**Time Frame:** The entire Value Analysis process can vary in duration,
ranging from 2 weeks to 9 weeks, dependent upon the scale and complexity
of the project and the decision involved. The specific study format will
be tailored to the project. Preparation of background materials may
require 1/2 to 2 weeks. The workshop itself may require from 3 to 5
days, depending upon the complexity of the issues, with a shorter
duration for simpler more targeted decisions. Study findings are
presented orally with a summary document at the conclusion of the
workshop, and a final report follows within approximately 3 to 6
calendar weeks. Mini-VA\'s targeted on smaller decision can be much
shorter in duration.

**Who is involved:** Composition of the study team and the audience for
the concluding presentation are critical to the success of the study.
The team will typically include key members of the park or of the
requesting office staff, key members of the DSC and/or A/E design
staffs, the VA facilitator, and in most cases independent consultants or
technical experts. Great success has been achieved with the inclusion of
sustainable technical experts from the NPS or other agencies such as the
National Renewable Energy Lab.

If not participating on the team, those involved in designing and
development of a project are key participants. The study begins with a
design presentation explaining how the preferred alternative or
alternatives were developed and serving as consultants to the team.

**Cost:** The true cost of a Value Analysis is the value increased and
the costs saved or avoided by a study versus the time and expenses of
involved in gathering the background information, participating in the
workshop, and preparing the final report. The National Park Service has
experienced returns of 20-40 to each dollar invested in a value study.
Actually study costs vary dependent upon the size of the team, whether
their cost are charged to the project, use of contractors, and whether
travel is involved. A typical value analysis requires from 2 to 4 weeks
on the part of the facilitator to prepare for the session, conduct it,
and to write the report. Costs would include salary, materials used in
the analysis session, reproduction costs, and travel and per diem
expenses. Additional costs include salary and travel expenses of other
team members (e.g. Denver Service Center Personnel, A/E consultants,
support office participants, etc.). Study costs will range from \$10,000
to \$50,000 dependent upon duration, complexity, and size of team.

**CASE STUDIES:**

**Canyon View Information Plaza at Mather Point; Visitor Transportation
and Orientation Center.** This project has utilized value methods
throughout the decisionmaking process for the facility, for a current
total of approximately eleven value studies. Topics included site
selection, building organization and massing, materials selection, and
rail transit related issues. A value analysis was conducted at the
pre-design level for the Plaza which identified over \$2.0 million in
implemented value savings, with an investment of approximately \$70,000;
a return on investment of over 25:1.

**General Management Plan, Mount Rainier National Park.** Value methods
were used to select and construct the proposed action for the General
Management, including Choosing by Advantages (CBA) and life cycle cost
modeling. CBA was used to evaluate the non-monetary advantages of each
alternative e.g. how did the alternatives affect visitor experience or
protect resources. Life cycle cost estimates for each alternative were
prepared, modeling staffing variations, plowing costs, building
maintenance and operations, possible visitor shuttle operations.
Importance or benefit to cost relationships formed the basis for
selecting the proposed action.

**Canyon Village Lodging, Yellowstone National Park.** At the request of
the park and their concessionaire, the Denver Service Center conducted a
value analysis that looked at the existing design of a lodging facility
at Canyon Village and then looked at long-term development scenarios for
the replacement of deteriorating cabin facilities. The result of the
study was a reduction in the cost per lodging unit, identification of
specific revision required in contract documents and a beginning
evaluation of options for a more effective replacement of cabins at
Canyon Village.

**Water Pipe Material Selection, Shenandoah National Park.** The
[mini-value analysis]{.underline} format was used to focus on a
materials choice between ductile iron pipe and PVC pipe. An
approximately half day VA was conducted, gathering various engineering
disciplines together, to explore possible alternatives to the
traditionally specified ductile iron pipe. Ideas considered ranged from
different pipe materials to different ways of installing and bedding the
pipe.

**Cliff House, Golden Gate National Recreation Area.** The park was
presented with a pressing issue regarding public safety, historical
significance, and continued use of the Cliff House Restaurant and
associated buildings. The existing structures and viewing plaza did not
meet structural, seismic, accessibility or general building codes. The
park employed the Value Analysis process to determine the best
alternative to meet the needs of this site's visitors. It was determined
that the two alternatives, with similar costs, most completely meet
these needs. Other non-monetary differences, became the deciding
factors, and the value analysis recommendation was to retain the
historic core of the facility and to restore it to it's 1909 exterior
appearance, extensively remodel it's interior to meet life safety and
accessibility requirements, and to remove non-historic additions and
replace them with new and visually compatible additions.