Association of Defense Communities Panel Overview of a Three Part Discussion in Partnerships

1. Association of Defense Communities Panel Overview of a Three Part Discussion in Partnerships June 12, 2013

2. Discussion Outline • Session Description • Session Speakers • Legislation Overview • Air Force Community Partnership Program • Air Force Community Partnerships Program and Tinker AFB • Army’s Privatization and Partnerships • Congressional Intent of Legislation • Open Discussion

3. Session Speaker Description • Jennifer Curtin, Senior Associate, Booz Allen Hamilton • Mr. Steven Zander, Program Director, Air Force Community Partnership Program, Office of The Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations, Environment and Logistics • Tim Lyon, Assistant City Manager, Midwest City, OK • Mr. Ivan Bolden, Chief, Army’s Privatization and Partnerships, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management • Ms. Rochelle Dornatt, Office of Representative Sam Farr • Ms. Susan Morris, Principal, Booz Allen Hamilton

4. Session Description • This primer will consist of three sessions: • Legislative Authorities • Success and Roadblocks • Requirements and Needs • The session will end with open discussion between the panel members and attendees

5. Ms. Jennifer Curtin, Senior Associate, Booz Allen Hamilton – Section 331 Legislation Description and Discussion June 12, 2013

6. Partnering Scope • What are the tools? • What is the need? • Who are the players? • Legal Authorities • Relationships Potential Stakeholder Groups Potential Functional Areas • Federal Government • State Government • Local Government • Economic Development Groups • Industry • Utilities • Higher Education • Others • Facilities • Land Use • Utilities/Energy • Emergency Services • Environmental • Transportation • Education • Workforce • Others

7. Defense Legal Authorities for Partnerships • Energy (10 USC 2913) • Housing (10 USC 2872) • Utilities (10 USC 2688) • Encroachment Prevention/Conservation (10 USC 2684/94) • Commercial Leasing (10 USC 2667) • Science Education/Technology (10 USC 2194) • Testing and Evaluation (10 USC 2681) • Property Exchange Authority (10 USC 18233) • Municipal Services/CA only (FY’04 NDAA)

8. NDAAFY13 - Section 331 • Enacted January 10, 2013 • Intergovernmental support agreements with State and local governments: 10 USC 2336 • In General: (1) The Secretary concerned may enter into an intergovernmental support agreement with a State or local government to provide, receive, or share installation-support services if the Secretary determines that the agreement will serve the best interests of the department by enhancing mission effectiveness or creating efficiencies or economies of scale, including by reducing costs. • May be entered into on a sole-source basis • May be for a term not to exceed five years • Installation support services are those service typically provided by local government for its own needs. • These agreements shall not be used to circumvent A-76 requirements for competition.

9. Mr. Steve Zander, Program Director, Air Force Community Partnership Program – Air Force Community Partnership Program June 12, 2013

11. Shared Environment • Reduced budgets & fiscal challenges • Manpower cuts; hiring freezes; realignments; furloughs? • Force structure changes and defense industry reductions • Innovative partnerships—sparked by new legislation • Need to make “Every Dollar Count,” provide quality services, allocate risk, share value This is NOT business as usual

12. Vision and Goals AF and Local Community Leadership is key! Bring AF leadership and resource support as Installation and Community leaders develop, prioritize and implement community partnership initiatives Practice the “Art of the Possible” Identify ways to get to “Yes” by identifying resource requirements: Time, Money, Manpower, Authority

13. Possible Stakeholders • Local, State & Federal Governments (City Managers, Emergency Management, and Public Works) • Regional Planning Organizations • Key Tenant Organizations • Economic Development Organizations • Educators and University Organizations • Non-Governmental Organizations • Conservation Organizations • Union Representatives • Utility Companies • Community Thought Leaders (e.g., Community Alliances, Chambers of Commerce) • Non-Profits • Private sector experts (as appropriate)

14. Potential Cross-Functional Initiatives • Chaplain Programs • Pharmacy • Data Center Training/Cable Maintenance • Expand bus system • Airport Operations and Maintenance • University training of critical need interns • Strategic Sourcing • Sharing of Security intelligence • Prisoner Detention • Shared use Firing Ranges • Cooperative Police Training • Many of the AF Services provided Airmen support programs: • Youth Programs • Lodging • Community Educational Center near front gate • Waste Management/Recycling • Snow removal • Cooperative Fire Training/Support

15. AF Community Partnership Process The AF Community Partnership Process is simple: • Provide a Partnership “Brokering Team” when Installation and Community Leaders commit to using the AF process • Schedule a series of 6 meetings that enable identifying potential partnership initiatives—this series of meetings helps identify potential initiatives that address mutual need and capacities • Once initiatives are “fleshed-out” in adequate detail, bring in experts to help define the way forward—this will help drive initiative priority • By the time of the Table Top Exercise, identify exactly what resources are required, when resources will be needed, and who programs The process is simple, but gaining efficiency requires hard work

16. Questions?

17. Mr. Tim Lyon, Assistant City Manager, Midwest City, OK and Tinker AFB – P4 – Section 331 Partnership Projects June 12, 2013

18. Opportunities “Not Business as Usual” • Jail Services - Signed • Juvenile Services - Signed • Pavements • Shooting Range • Hotel Billeting/Officer’s Club Refuse Collection a) City Sanitation Dept. b) Efficiency - 20% capacity c) Energy - CNG d) Savings $$$

19. Obstacles – “Not just challenging the status quo but CHANGING the status quo” • Conflicting initiatives, FAR versus Section 331? • Small Business & 8A Contract • Contracting Office • Budget versus Cost Accounting • Costing Calculations/Methodology • Capital Purchases in excess of five (5) years

20. Conclusion - Requirements Leadership: Base and Community What can we do as a community to increase “our” military asset? Tim Lyon Assistant City Manager of Administration City of Midwest City, OK 405-739-1201

21. Mr. Ivan Bolden, Chief, Army’s Privatization and Partnerships – Public-Public Partnering June 12, 2013

22. Multi-phased Public-Public Partnership (P3) Strategy • Phase I: ASA IE&E issues P3 endorsement • Phase II: ACSIM issues an EXORD to ACOMs/DRUs • Three categories of partnership proposals • Quick Win • Moderately complex • Complex • Phase III: ACSIM evaluates universe of P3s and drafts policy • Phase IV: ACSIM issues Army Policy concerning P3

23. Phase II: Delegation of Partnership Approval Authority • Quick Wins—Delegated to Garrison Commanders • No exchange of funds (barter only) • No conflicts with existing guidance, policy, regulations or laws • Moderately Complex—Delegated to ACOM/DRU HQ • No exchange of funds (barter only) • No conflicts with Army or DoD guidance, policy, regulations or laws • ACOM/DRU has lead to resolve conflicts • Complex---All approval authority initially remains at HQDA • Includes any exchange of funds • Conflicts with current Army or DoD guidance, policy, regulations or laws

24. Phase III: Evaluation of Partnerships • After 6 and 12 months, OACSIM review portfolio of P3s in concert with Secretariat, ACOMs, DRUs • Detect trends • Ascertain progress • Prepare joint service newsletter on P3 Best Practices • Consider future potential of regional partnerships that could be formed with other Services • Collaborate with other Services as needed to promote regionalization • Evaluate need for in-depth facilitated brainstorming sessions • Establish P3 Working Group to share progress with Defense Support organizations represented on a national basis

25. Phase IV: Issue Army Policy • Establish clear definitions • Establish metrics, progress reporting, and oversight process • Possible further delegation of approval authority • Possible addition of dollar threshold values applied to approval levels

26. Summary • To accelerate use of P3, will consider maximum delegation of approval authority, as appropriate, and balance with risk • We will maintain close ties with Air Force to share ideas and Lessons Learned • Continued Senior Army Leadership support is needed to ensure maximum advantage is obtained from new Sec 331 authority • If changes in guidance, policy, regulation or law are required, ARSTAF must be open and supportive

27. Ms. Rochelle Dornatt, Office of Representative Sam Farr – Section 331 Legislative Intent June 12, 2013

28. History of the “Monterey Model” • History of the “Monterey Model” • Initial Glitches (firefighters, federal unions) • Renewal of authority, permanently

29. Expanding the Concept to Other Bases • First, reticence to embrace the concept (within DOD and by base commanders) • Then, acceptance of the economic benefits • Finally, finding the right environment for passage (getting the politics right)

30. Congressional Intent Behind the Language • Economic dynamic • Achieving O&M efficiencies • Solidifying and enhancing the base-community relationship

31. Problems with Execution • Sole sourcing • Small business subcontract

32. Possible Solutions? • DOD clarification • NDAA report language • New legislation

33. Ms. Susan Morris, Booz Allen Hamilton Questions and Answers June 12, 2013