NNSA Infrastructure Initiatives BUILDER and MDI Jeff Underwood Office of Infrastructure and Capital Planning March 25,

1. NNSA Infrastructure Initiatives BUILDER and MDI Jeff Underwood Office of Infrastructure and Capital Planning March 25, 2014

2. NA-OO Strategic Objectives • Arrest the declining state of NNSA infrastructure • Build an operating model that is repeatable, predictable, transparent, effective and efficient. • Drive NNSA towards a positive performance culture with safe operations • Implement cutting-edge sustainable infrastructure management practices • Manage risk and employ innovative solutions

4. BLUF • Ability to “see” conditions via uniform lens across all NNSA sites • Ability to understand and to project risk at various funding levels • Data required at enterprise level, sites can use BUILDER for original assessments or can pass data into BUILDER from existing systems. • Enterprise level “real time” data to monitor program execution. • A National Academy of Science recommended way to communicate the condition of real property to key stakeholders, adopted by the DoD and being adopted by other agencies, including DNI, FBI, and the Smithsonian. • More efficient use of limited site resources.

5. BLUF • Ability to “see” conditions via uniform lens across all NNSA sites • Ability to understand and to project risk at various funding levels • Data required at enterprise level, sites can use BUILDER for original assessments or can pass data into BUILDER from existing systems. • Enterprise level “real time” data to monitor program execution. • A National Academy of Science recommended way to communicate the condition of real property to key stakeholders, adopted by the DoD and being adopted by other agencies, including DNI, FBI, and the Smithsonian. • More efficient use of limited site resources.

6. Process

7. Inventory • Import from FIMS and site systems. • Supports tactical actions (e.g. replace roof, repair doors, replace HVAC, etc.) • Group assets for lifecycle investment management, reduces assessment requirements • Immediately supports asset performance predictions Example Building Hierarchy

8. Condition Assessment Capture the lifecycle rating of an asset to inform risk-based decisions • Performance Requirements may change, but measurement should be constant • Inspectors are “human sensor” and do not provide opinion/interpretation • Models the rating given by an expert based uponengineering principles for consistency across an organization • Assessment frequency and level-of-detail are tailored to mission risk and lifecycle condition (Knowledge Based Inspections) • Import legacy deficiencies from existing software for IOC, round out with assessment of other systems after IOC. Navy has recognized 75% savings over their previous assessment program.

9. Condition Prediction Construction/Installation 100 Inspection 1 “Economic Sweet Spot” Inspection 2 80 Asset Condition Index Inspection 3 60 Condition @ Failure 40 20 “Real” Service Life = 17 years Design Life = 20 yrs. 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Adaptive model predicts performance of eachunique asset; identifies best time to invest

10. Functionality Assessment • Modernization inspection addresses issues of: • Capacity (too little or too much) • Configuration • Change in user requirements • Technical obsolescence • Regulatory/code compliance • Etc. • Available at building, space, and component levels • Can simulate mission change to determine investment requirements for future occupants

11. Work (Requirements) Generation • Work is automatically created based upon Enterprise-defined rules that capture acceptable levels of risk for differing assets • System evaluates work options to optimize Return on Investment • Work is generated using objective ratings AND a defensible set of enterprise policies, eliminating subjective judgment and gaming of the system. Enterprise-defined rules generate consistent requirements Service- wide

12. Work Generation 100 CI Gain 80 HVAC (70) 60 Interior Construction (55) Repair Repair CI SL Gain 40 20 0 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year Work requirements are automatically generated when condition falls below enterprise policy levels.

13. Requirements Prioritization • Balance multiple, competing criteria for determination of the best enterprise infrastructure investment strategy • Tool includes metrics which express [cost] effectiveness, risk, and consequence factors • Program override available for must-do items Uniform prioritization of requirements across organization enforces consistent investment guidance.

14. Actionable Work Plan 2010 2010 2010 Work is for specific assets; establishes transparency, traceabilityand accountability

15. Condition Index (CI) BUILDER-derived value is more consistent and repeatable than deficiency-based methods • Work is now generated using objective ratings AND an defensible set of enterprise policies, rather than subjective judgment • Prioritization scheme can leverage metrics to focus resources on greatest need. CI computation is based upon objective assessment methods and consistent work rules.

16. Forecasting What-If capability allows changing inventory, policies, prioritization, funding, and forecast period to determine different outcomes. Supports: • Budget Creation • Budget Defense • Course Of Action Analysis • Out-year strategic condition trends • Will levels meet current mission requirements? • Will levels meet future mission requirements? Actionable intelligence built from the asset up

17. Forecasting Results Impact on Systems of Funding 50% of Requirement HVAC Functioning High Risk Electrical Failure Roofing

18. Benefits Over Today • Reduced assessment costs • Avoidance of missed opportunity costs • Avoidance of stale information costs • Adaptability to additional assessment protocols • Sustained product improvements through R&D • No product licensing costs (Federally owned)

19. Take Aways • BUILDER provides consistent, objective, efficient decision support and reporting on facility conditions and investment requirements from the site to the enterprise level • NNSA is following DoD’s and adopting BUILDER as standardized condition assessment process and tool for all components • USACE is supporting implementation efforts for many DoD agencies.

20. New Metric Mission Dependency Index (MDI) at a Glance

21. Basic Parameters and Calculations “N” Interdependencies Q1 Q3 “A” Matrix “B” Matrix Q2 Q4 MDI = (16.5(A + (1/8) Bavg + 0.1lnN)-15.5 Answers to Q1 and Q3 select a column within the A and B matrices (typically 4x4). Answers to Q2 an Q4 select rows; a11 and b11 have highest consequence and greatest difficulty to replace. A = Matrix element chosen by Q1 and Q2 in A Matrix. Bavg = Average of matrix elements chosen by Q3 and Q4 in the B Matrix for each of N different interdependent assets. 16.5 and 15.5 normalize to 100 max and 1 min values for the 4x4 matrix with a11 and b11 equal to 7 and each element differing from its neighbors by 1. 1/8 and 0.1 lnN are empirical and can be adjusted to fit the user’s intuitive importance of interdependencies.

22. Key Concepts • MDI is based on the functionality (useful purposes) provided by the asset, not the asset itself. This focuses on why the asset is useful and not on the asset itself. • Restoration of the functionality provided by an asset is not necessarily the same as restoration of the asset. • Loss of functionality has a consequence for mission, assessed separately from the consequences of an accident or other unplanned event that might cause a loss of functionality. Answering Question Q1 captures the severity of the consequence of a loss of the asset’s functionality. • Restoration of functionality requires overcoming a level of difficulty. Answering Question Q2 captures the difficulty of restoring the functionality of an asset. • Some asset functionalities affect the functionality of other assets. Answering Q3 & Q4 capture the consequences and difficulties, similar to Q1 and Q2, for the asset. • MDI is calculated from the consequence of loss of functionality and the difficulty of restoration of functionality, adjusted for asset interdependency.

23. Take Aways • Answers the question, “ How much risk am I accepting on the facilities most essential to my mission and commitments?” • Measures risk across a spectrum from 0 to 100 (instead of the macro current MC/MD/NMCMD bins in use today.) • Writing Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 in terms of senior management priorities allows tailoring to different missions and goals, allowing functionalities supporting safety and environment to compete with direct mission functionalities. • MDI x Condition Index gives a prioritization metric for maintenance. • MDI is a key parameter in the work planning portion of the Builder Sustainment Management System. • Implementation effort can be simplified by preparing standard screenings for general purpose facilities, allowing sites to accept the standard screenings or to modify to fit local circumstances.