1 / 12

Briefing to EFCOG Infrastructure Management Working Group Annual Meeting PRESENTED BY JOHN BERNIER For: Thad Konopnicki

Improving Construction Project Management and Performance . Briefing to EFCOG Infrastructure Management Working Group Annual Meeting PRESENTED BY JOHN BERNIER For: Thad Konopnicki Director Office of Project Management & Systems Support October 17, 2006. Agenda. Background

vito
Télécharger la présentation

Briefing to EFCOG Infrastructure Management Working Group Annual Meeting PRESENTED BY JOHN BERNIER For: Thad Konopnicki

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Improving Construction Project Management and Performance • Briefing to EFCOG Infrastructure Management • Working Group Annual Meeting PRESENTED BY JOHN BERNIER For: Thad Konopnicki Director Office of Project Management & Systems Support October 17, 2006

  2. Agenda • Background • Summer 2006 “Findings” • Root Causes for Project Failures • Thad’s Message • Recommendations from NWC Sites • Conclusions • What to Do Next?

  3. BackgroundSummer 2006 “Findings” • Project management “enjoys” significant political interest (it’s where the money comes from) • Within DOE/NNSA there is unequivocal direct support from the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, and Under Secretary/Administrator Brooks for excellence in project management performance • Project management landscape is ever-changing (i.e., Orders, Standards, Measuring, Training, and Federal–Contractor Partnership) with all changes directed at measurably improved project management • Stark conclusion – the foregoing is not bringing about dramatic improvements as measured by any standard

  4. BackgroundRoot Causes for Project Failures • Preconstruction Planning is Inadequate • Unfounded optimism in most planning and risk scenarios • Inadequate Cost Estimating • Inadequate risk planning, assessment, and mitigation strategies – poor follow through • Inadequate Construction Project Experience by the Contractor’s Project Management Line Managers • Lack of Ownership, Executive Involvement, & Leadership – until something goes wrong! • Subcontractor performance (monitoring, corrective actions, etc.) • Little evidence of the competent use of the Independent Project Team as provided for in OMB Circular A-11, current Capital Programming Guide, and DOE Order 413.3

  5. Thad’s Message • Contract formulation and contract execution remain as top concerns • Lack of experience dominates the performance and execution of NNSA Line Items • M&O reliance on existing staff to manage projects that exceed available expertise • Project Managers shy from the “onerousness” of accountability • Too frequently, safety basics are absent from construction sites • M&Os are pricing themselves out of the construction market • NNSA/M&O must pilot new approaches that will accelerate improvement

  6. Recommendations from the NWC • Quantify the cost benefits of having the M&Os contract and manage construction projects. • Circa mid-1980s, DOE performed this role. Change was enacted because M&Os convinced Feds that they could save money • Develop a framework for assessing local business conditions and forecasts into project baselines • Develop a DOE requirement for such an assessment to be included in all CD-2 decision packages • Develop methodology to mitigate risk of “baseline-busting” bids solicited 12-18 months after approval of the baseline • Develop methods for addressing material cost escalation for construction projects

  7. Recommendations from the NWC(cont’d) • Ensure effective oversight of construction subcontractors • Develop comprehensive and effective dissemination of lessons learned, especially safety issues (read electrical gaffes repeated) • Perform analysis of post-DOE O 413.3 projects (CD-2 after 2001). Determine if this rigor is resulting in better baselines. Please Answer: • Compare original baseline to final baseline of projects reaching CD-4 approval and 5 years before the order. Were there any improvements? • What is the average number of Baseline Change Proposals (BCPs) for projects during pre and post-Order?

  8. Recommendations from the NWC(cont’d) • Explore feasibility of funding low-risk Line Items with TPC<$50M in one fiscal year once mission need is approved(Corollary: TPC<$100M in two years) • Cost Estimating for Construction and Construction Management • Hire cost estimating consultants (using delivery order contract) • Delivery order contracts for construction management, engineering & architectural design services that can be administered locally by Site Offices and paid for by HQ or NNSA Service Center funding • Determine the wisdom of turning over some projects to an independent A/E that reports to NNSA Feds – Laboratory becomes technical consultant to A/E

  9. Recommendations from the NWC(cont’d) • “In a nutshell, the key to this work (PM activities) is: • ensuring that you understand the roles and responsibilities of the owner’s team, the construction manager’s team, and the contractor’s team; • Obtain the best staff you can to manage the work; and • Lastly, it is the owner who sets the pace, expectations and is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of the work – so don’t confuse this issue and attempt to place this responsibility on a contractor.” • Answer the following objectively: EFCOG has been around for at least a decade in DOE • What has EFCOG done for DOE Project management lately? • Can you quantify your added value? • Would EFCOG accept tasks contract style? SOW, start/end date?

  10. Conclusions • Stepping back from the last 4 slides, HQs finds that: • Agreement is widespread among federal and M&O rank and file that Project Management is in need of dramatic improvement • The Federal/M&O Contractor partnership has yet to make a commitment to excellence • And as you can see, there are lots of disparate recommendations • Complex 2030 portends growth in LI modernization and large facility disposition projects • What to do next ?

  11. What to Do Next? • We need new approaches: • Pricing ourselves out of market • Onerous oversight & requirements (which aren’t solving the problem • Alternative contracting strategies and approaches with emphasis on dramatic improvement • Feds need to accept the owner’s role and responsibilities • Feds need to be more demanding customers • DOE Direct Contracts • Complex-wide construction contracts • Performance plans that obtain M&O Leadership’s attention regarding LIs

  12. What to Do Next? • Solve the problem of “We’re getting Less for more”: • Higher material costs • Unreasonably high construction bids (pricing) • “Project support costs” are exceeding direct construction costs • Overhead and G&A rates as applied to construction projects are unreasonable • Cost controls not always well managed • Establish dedicated HQ/EFCOG Partnership dedicated to solving the problem • We propose Mike Hickman – NA-54 • EFCOG proposes – (To be filled in today by you!)

More Related