# Presentation: 209748

## Quality Assurance  TaskInteragency Agreement with Dept. of Navy

- Navy Public Works Center conduct three (3) QA tests at three DOE sites.
- First three sites will be non-CAIS users.
- SLAC, ANL-E and SRS (EM & NNSA).
- First test underway November 18.
- Inspect an admin., storage and lab asset.
- SRS inspect 4 assets.. 2 from EM & NNSA.

## Quality Assurance Task

- Purpose of Task:
- are sites using industry standards as their basis for inspections.
- Evaluate the effectiveness, completeness and accuracy of site cost estimating systems to estimate deferred maintenance costs.

## Quality Assurance Task

- Task is initially funded by OECM.
- NNSA and SC show interest for additional QA.
- Future task will include QA of CAIS and 	remaining non-CAIS sites.
- When ..?
- (addition sites will require funds from PSOs.)

## Quality Assurance TaskGeneral Methodology

- Sites select 3 assets.
- Assets inspected current year and no repairs undertaken.
- NPWC will use mech., elect., and civil to inspect assets.
- CAIS Team- Ken Rowe & Chuck Siegfried.
- NPWC collect data in their software and CAIS data sheets.

## Quality Assurance TaskGeneral Methodology (cont..)

- Data compared to Site inspections.
- Comparison made between site, NPWC and CAIS costs.
- Detailed analysis made comparing all costs.
- Comparison made to base costs only.
- Analysis notes deficiencies not covered and cost differences in the three systems.

## Quality Assurance TaskGeneral Methodology (cont..)

- Analysis will discuss inflators or adjustments that make DMC more accurate.
- CAIS team members will enter inspection results in CAIS.
- CAIS team will study conversion  possibilities of site database data to CAIS.
- Final Report issued two weeks after task completion.

## Quality Assurance TaskGeneral Methodology (cont..)

- Schedules
- SLAC .. November 18 – November 22
- ANL-E.. 1st or 2nd week of December.
- SRS.. Late January 2003.
- Assessments last 1 week and assets should be from 10-15,000 sq. ft.

## Quality Assurance TaskDeliverables

- Descriptions of assets and inspected systems.
- List of site contractor’s deficiencies.
- List of NPWC deficiencies.
- Discussion of differences of methods and data.
- Comparison between the 3 costing system results.

## Quality Assurance TaskDeliverables (cont..)

- Discussion of conversion effort from site estimating system to CAIS and NPWC systems.
- A list of inflators or adjustments that may make QA site DMC more accurate.
- Any other site QA volunteers?

## Problems with Original CAIS

- Handheld was Extremely Inefficient
- Desktop Data Entry was Inefficient
- Many Cost Estimates were Bad
- Reports were Nearly Worthless
- Custom Reports were nearly Impossible
- UNIX System was a Terrible Idea
- System Administrator Costs were High

## Original Problems (Continued)

- Deficiency Standards were / are Worthless
- Training only focused on software details
- Re-Inspection requires a new “blank sheet.”
- No Maint vs. Improvement Field
- Half-baked Need Year Field
-  No Pick-list for Method of Correction
- Costing does not consider Method of C

## Problems (Continued Again)

- No Export to or Interface with WO System
- No FIMS Interface

## Reasons Not to Convert to CAIS

- Some old problems still remain.
- Other Systems may  be Better
- Whitestone MARS /  TEC
- ISES
- AME
- Contracted Insp with non-CAIS system may be less expensive.
- PS.  Consider the benefits of changing contractors.

## An Important RPAM Requirement

- To be compliant with RPAM non-CAIS systems must have “unit costs updated annually.”
- Escalators for Old Estimates are not acceptable.
- ISES system does not comply.  But it should be okay to escalate 3 yr old estimates.

## Problems with CAS / DM Reporting

- Scope and Type of Inspections
- ID all needs including improvements
- ID big ticket needs not needed until future years
- ID needs of all sizes & for In-House and Contract
- Categorizing and Prioritizing Needs
- Not using three expert inspectors plus roof insp.
- Classifying needs as M or I.
- ID of Rehabs as a combination of DM, non-DM, and I.
- “Was not performed when it should have been, ***or was scheduled to be***.”

## CAS / DM Problems (Cont)

- Correctly Identifying the Need Year.
- DOE Guidance only says “Use Optimal ROI.”
- Possible Need Year Questions
- During what FY will we have $ to do the work?
- Do we need to correct this deficiency this FY in order to avoid conditions that are inadequate for mission accomplishment?
- During what FY do we expect mission failure if the work is not done?
- During what FY do we really, really, really need to do this work?

## More Possible Need Year Questions

- Do we need to accomplish this work in the current FY in order to maintain or achieve conditions appropriate for conducting world-class research?
- Would it be a definite waste of taxpayer $ if this work was accomplished during the current FY?
- If there were a pot of HQ $ available to all sites, would you tell HQ that you do not need $ to accomplish this work during the current FY?  (Give the $ to some other site that has needs.)
- All the above questions comply with DOE Guidance except the first one.

## How to Fix DM Reporting 

- Publish detailed HQ Guidance on M vs. I.
- Publish Additional HQ Guidance on the correct Need Year Question or Questions.
- Do the above very soon for use in 03 Inspections.
- Every Inspector and Multiple Reviewers Need to Be Totally Up-to-Speed on above.
- Contract the Inspections to have better, more comprehensive deficiency ID.

## Experienced Based CAS Estimates are a “No! No!”  Should they Be a “Yes! Yes!”?

- None of the books correctly cover all or even most of the deficiencies identified.
- Those who say they use the books for DM estimates are not telling the whole truth.
- Estimates based on history are the best!
- Estimates based on expertise are often better than book estimates for complicated work..
- Estimates based on experience usually have sufficient accuracy (plus or minus 30%) and are much easier and faster to generate.

## Blank

## Blank

## Blank

## Costs to be, or not to be, part of Maint Reporting and MII Calculation

- Planners and Estimators
- Work Reception and Data Entry Clerks
- Training costs
- Computer Hardware and Software Costs
- Travel costs, eg. to EFCOG
- CAS Costs
- % of  Maintenance Manager and Staff

## Color of Money Issues

- During the 1980’s the Accounting Handbook said retirement units determine the color of money for replacement work.
- Sites were unable to accomplish needed work because of scarce GPP funds.
- CH was successful in getting a commitment to change the Accounting Handbook to fix above problems.
- Another change:  “Alterations” were classified as non-betterments to be funded with OE.

## Color of Money (Cont)

- Another change, implemented by the old GPP Order, was that GPP funds could not be used for roof replacements and most other replacements.
- During the early 1990’s there were mixed messages (Budget Examples, unchanged Handbook) and lack of continued emphasis on the above changes.
- Currently some sites are using GPP for roof replacements and similar replacement work..

## Color of Money (Cont)

- According to the Current Accounting Handbook:
- Replacements must be significant improvements to be betterments and GPP.
- Replacements must feature a very significant increase in capacity to be betterments and GPP. (“Replacing a 200 ton chiller with a 300 ton.”)
- Any significant improvement or very significant increase in capacity is not a betterment or GPP if the cost is less than $25,000.
- If the betterment portion of a combination project is over $25K, the entire project must be funded with GPP. (Therefore there is a valid reason to ID the maint  %)

## Color of Money (Cont)

- Currently anyone can argue either way as to whether or not an improvement is significant and therefore to be GPP funded.
-  Therefore, currently there is flexibility in deciding the color of money.  It’s a “fielder’s choice.”  All decisions are okay.
- “Upgrade” is a common word to use to justify funding with GPP.
- Currently IGPP and PSO level re-programming from OE to GPP is possible.

## Color of Money (Cont)

- If the Accounting Handbook was followed correctly and consistently, the maintenance portion of GPP would be a low %.
- The Accounting Handbook is not clear and even contradictory.  The Handbook needs improvement.  Not changes, but more clearly stating what is currently intended.
- If a project must be OE funded and not GPP funded, another “legal” option is to make it a Line Item project.  But Line Item funds are scarce.

## Color of Money (Cont)

- SC-82 wrote, “Maint _**may**_ be funded with OE or Capital Funds.”
- SC-82 wrote, “Replacements are ‘Generally Capital Funded.’”
- The above statements were not intended to change funding rules, or to grant permission, or to encourage use of GPP or LI for maintenance.  They were intended to be statements that recognize past and current practices.

## Color of Money (Cont)

- It is my understanding that currently SC-1 and SC-82 desire to fund most replacement work from OE, not from GPP or with LI.
- There is a desire to use GPP & LI for Rehab and Replacement Bldgs (Recapitalization)
- If GPP funds are required for a project that the site really needs, IGPP or re-programming is a possibility.
- It is very important for Color of Money to not be a roadblock for any needed project.

## Color of Money (Cont)

- I highly recommend identifying three categories DM based on planned funding:  OE or GPP or LI.
- I highly recommend identifying and reporting the amount and prioritized list of backlogged improvements. (This is an old Order requirement that has never been implemented.)
- We are over-focused on DM & Maint funding and have little focus on improvement backlog and improvement funding..

## Experienced Based CAS Estimates are a “No! No!”  Should they Be a “Yes! Yes!”?

- None of the books correctly cover all or even most of the deficiencies identified.
- Those who say they use the books for DM estimates are not telling the whole truth.
- Estimates based on history are the best!
- Estimates based on expertise are often better than book estimates for complicated work..
- Estimates based on experience usually have sufficient accuracy (plus or minus 30%) and are much easier and faster to generate.