VIEWS: 8 PAGES: 50 POSTED ON: 3/9/2014
8/20/2007 DRAFT CH2M HILL Academy Services Draft CHAS Master Maintenance Plan Trade secrets and commercial or financial information contained herein are privileged or confidential within the meaning of 5 USC 552 and Executive Order 12600 and, as such, are exempt from the public disclosure provisions thereof. Such information is furnished to the Government in confidence, with the understanding that it will not, without the permission of CH2M HILL Academy Services, LLC, be reproduced, used, or disclosed for any purpose other than the purpose for which it was furnished. August 20, 2007 Contract Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 8/20/2007 Draft SFOC Maintenance Plan 8/20/2007 REVISION LOG REV CHANGE LTR NO DESCRIPTION DATE 8/20/2007 August 20, 2007 The current status of all pages in this document is as shown below: Page No. Change No. Date 8/20/2007 PREFACE The Master Maintenance was prepared by the CH2M HILL Academy Services (CHAS). The primary responsibility is with CHAS, Work Management Division, D/400. Questions concerning the technical content of this document should be directed to Matt Gogan, Cell Number 719-896-6814, D/400. Prior to September 1, 2007, the equipment identified in the RFP Appendix A-2, PM Items and their corresponding Maintenance Action Sheets (MAS) from IWIMS, will be populated into Maximo within our Enterprise Management System (EMS). This enables us to assume responsibility for all Preventive Maintenance (PM) tasks in the contract and allow us to measure, “from day one” performance, against established goals. Our approach to maintenance is not “status quo” but is a proven process for delivering maintenance in a low-risk manner, ensuring performance and quality standards, enhancing system/equipment reliability, and reducing lifecycle costs. Our processes are geared to provide the required performance at the least cost. CONTENTS Section Page 1 .0 introduction .............................................................................................3 2 .0 Scope .......................................................................................................3 3 .0 Funding Requirements .........................................................................4 3.1 PM And PdM...................................................................................4 3.2 Table 3-1: PM and PdM Funding identifies required preventive maintenance (PM) and predictive maintenance (PdM) funding for the next five years. Funding requirements are the funds needed to perform the scheduled PM and PdM on all equipment covered by this plan and include all labor, parts, materials, and special tools. ............................................................4 3.3 Programmed Maintenance ..............................................................5 3.4 Repair and Trouble Calls (DSW) .....................................................6 3.5 Replacement Of Obsolete Items (ROI)............................................6 3.6 Special Programs ............................................................................7 3.7 Aggregate Five-Year Funding Plan .................................................8 4 .0 MAINTENANCE........................................................................................8 4.1 Maintenance organization ...............................................................8 4.2 MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE .................................................9 “Reduced cost of preventive maintenance, enhanced system reliability, resulting in fewer equipment outages, and improved data to plan for and justify long range equipment i 8/20/2007 replacement projects”. This excerpt from the CHAS proposal, establishes the dimensions of CHAS maintenance performance. .........................................9 4.3 Budget Shortfall ...............................................................................4-10 Appendix Appendix A: Abbreviations & acronyms ...................................................................1 Appendix B: Definitions Appendix C: Trouble Call Projection Estimate (DSW) Appendix D: Performance Monitoring Development Appendix E: Preventive Maintenance Model Appendix: F: Maintenance Metrics ii 8/20/2007 FIGURES Figures Page TABLES Table 3-1: PM and PdM Funding .............................................................................5 Table 3-2: Programmed Maintenance Funding .......................................................5 Table 3-3: Repair and Trouble Calls (DSW) Funding ..............................................6 Table 3-4: ROI Funding ...........................................................................................7 Table 3-5: Special Program Funding .......................................................................7 Table 3-6: Five-Year Funding Roll-up ......................................................................8 Table 0-1: Example System-level 5 Year Plan spreadsheet....................................11 Table 0-2: Condition Assessment Codes.................................................................13 Table 0-3: Choosing an RCM Approach for a Given System ..................................19 Table 0-4: RCM Training Needs ..............................................................................20 Table 0-5: Tools and Equipment Analysis ...............................................................23 Table 0-6 4-7 Table 0-7: Initiatives Funding ...................................................................................4-8 Table 0-8: PM & PdM Tasks Completed as a Percentage of Tasks Scheduled......4-8 Table 0-9: Maintenance-induced Critical Operation Downtime................................4-9 Table 0-10: BMAR History .......................................................................................4-9 Table 0-11: Budget Shortfall Action Plan .................................................................4-10 Table 0-12: Budget Plus-up Action Plan ..................................................................4-11 Table 0-13: Repair Cost Analysis ............................................................................6 iii 3/9/2014 DRAFT 1 .0 INTRODUCTION This document describes the Maintenance Management Plan (the MMP Plan) for the AFA and represents a budgeting plan for the maintenance function. The Plan identifies high-level maintenance requirements, describes the resources available and required to manage and accomplish maintenance, and outlines the maintenance philosophy and approach for CHAS. Further, it provides a framework for managers to make risk-based decisions on the work to be accomplished and it identifies specific areas to improve the overall effectiveness of maintenance. The Plan identifies metrics to be used in tracking progress towards accomplishing these improvements. The Annual Work Plan (AWP) is the first year, or base year, of this Plan. The out years, beyond the base year, are estimates that will form the basis of future AWPs. Throughout this document, the term maintenance represents the activity undertaken to ensure the required facility, system, or equipment reliability and availability. That activity includes: traditional maintenance, work done to reduce the probability of failure; repair, the restoration of function following failure; custodial, work done to maintain appearance or cleanliness; and some operations. CHAS systems maintenance is crucial to insure reliability for the AFA mission. The effect of reduced maintenance is not always felt immediately; it is therefore essential that we have sufficient maintenance information to plan short-term and long-term maintenance requirements properly, recognize adverse trends, make the right decisions on deferred work and be able to predict the effect of reduced maintenance on system availability and the mission. CHAS has initiated many maintenance improvements in a variety of areas: computerized maintenance management systems, predictive technologies, risk management and long-range planning, to name a few. It is our obligation to organize these efforts into a coherent plan, to make the most efficient use of these efforts. This maintenance plan seeks to deploy these best practices throughout the contract in an organized way for the benefit of all concerned. RCM is a scheduled maintenance program designed to realize the inherent reliability potential of equipment. CHAS’s RCM develops scheduled maintenance programs to ensure the equipment’s minimum safety and reliability, and meets this requirement at the lowest cost. RCM is based on the premise that maintenance cannot improve upon the safety or reliability inherent in the design of the hardware, good maintenance can only preserve those characteristics. Our RCM approach uses decision logic to evaluate and construct maintenance tasks based on the equipment functions and failure codes. 2 .0 SCOPE This maintenance plan generally covers all facilities, systems, and equipment for which CHAS has maintenance responsibility. The plan includes Recurring Maintenance, Direct Scheduled Work and Programmed Maintenance. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT Sites include AFA, Bullseye and Farrish. RFP Appendix A-2, PM List summarizes the facilities, systems, and equipment for which CHAS has maintenance responsibility. A more detailed database, the CHAS Master Equipment List (MEL) maintained in MAXIMO will serve as CHAS’s means of accurately identifying assets and collecting maintenance metrics. The development and use of the MEL are discussed in detail in Section 4. Adjustments to the CHAS contract Appendix A-2, PM Items and the MEL will be partnered with AFA to ensure that the two lists are congruent. 3 .0 FUNDING REQUIREMENTS This Section identifies the CHAS maintenance funding requirements. Breakdowns of funding are provided by maintenance category. Breakdowns by individual facility, system and equipment are too voluminous for this report, but are planned to be provided in database format on the EMS Dashboard by the second quarter of Fiscal Year 09. Funding shortfalls and consequent maintenance backlogs are also presented. Performance metrics on asset condition, operational performance and failure rates are described in Appendix F: Maintenance Metrics. 3.1 PM And PdM 3.2 Table 3-1: PM and PdM Funding identifies required preventive maintenance (PM) and predictive maintenance (PdM) funding for the next five years. Funding requirements are the funds needed to perform the scheduled PM and PdM on all equipment covered by this plan and include all labor, parts, materials, and special tools. PdM figures represent the funding for organizations dedicated to PdM. Line organizations also perform PdM tasks, but do not collect their costs separately from PM, as this would take significant effort with little benefit in return. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT Table 3-1: PM and PdM Funding All funds are in current year K$. Activity Fiscal Year FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 PM Base Zone Cadet Zone Hospital Other PdM Base Zone Cadet Zone Hospital Other Total A drive within CHAS to incorporate PdM rapidly in FY08 leads to a corresponding increase in expenditures. Though such efforts are expected to reduce the necessary number of PM activities, PM tasks usually remain unchanged until equipment has been analyzed and appropriate PdM applications are established. 3.3 PROGRAMMED MAINTENANCE Programmed Maintenance (PGM) is similar to PM and PdM in that it is a scheduled activity intended to prevent failure. The repairs greater than 100 hours labor or $7500 requires funding from the AFA. These activities can occurs on a greater than one-year cycle. Table 3-2: Programmed Maintenance Funding identifies Programmed Maintenance requirements for each specific Site. Table 3-2: Programmed Maintenance Funding All funds are in current year K$. Fiscal Year FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Base Zone Cadet Zone Hospital Other Total Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT 3.4 REPAIR AND TROUBLE CALLS (DSW) Repair is “...fixing something broken or failing.” This means to restore the function within the funding guidelines identified in the contract. Trouble calls are a subset of repair in that they are low cost repairs. The funding limit guidelines for repair and trouble calls (currently 100 labor hours or $7500) are identified in the contract. Individual failures are usually unplanned events; however, they are not unexpected. In fact, one outcome of the RCM analysis process could be that run-to-failure may be the most cost effective maintenance approach for some equipment. When this is the case, the equipment or system is usually a low cost, non-critical, easily repaired item. This section is used to budget funds to provide for repairs and trouble calls. Funding requirements are the funds needed to perform repairs and trouble calls on all equipment covered by this plan and include all labor, parts, materials, and special tools. See Appendix D for guidelines to determine Repair and Trouble Call estimates. Table 3-3: Repair and Trouble Calls (DSW) Funding identifies funding requirements needed to perform repairs and trouble calls on all equipment covered by this Plan and includes all labor, parts, materials, and special tools. Table 3-3: Repair and Trouble Calls (DSW) Funding All funds are in current year K$. Activity Fiscal Year FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Base Zone Cadet Zone Hospital Other Total 3.5 REPLACEMENT OF OBSOLETE ITEMS (ROI) ROI is a category of systems that are cheaper to replace than to continue to operate or repair. Candidates for ROI are identified through RCM analysis, periodic review of repair costs, and long-range planning efforts. Table 3-4: ROI Funding identifies total planned ROI for the AFA sites. Details of the ROI projects are contained in the individual site long-range plans, such as the 5-Year Plan. The 5- Year Plan will be made available on the Web beginning in the third quarter of FY’08. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT Table 3-4: ROI Funding All funds are in current year K$. Fiscal Year FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Base Zone Cadet Zone Hospital Other Total Increase Due to Unfunded ROI Repair Trouble Calls Total Other 3.6 SPECIAL PROGRAMS Table 3-5: Special Program Funding identifies funding requirements for special programs not identified elsewhere in the Plan. These items are discussed in greater detail in the Initiatives section. Table 3-5: Special Program Funding All funds are in current year K$. Special Programs Fiscal Year FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Implement RCM PdM Penetration Implement CMMS Initial Condition Assessments MEL Backbone Contingencies Total Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT 3.7 AGGREGATE FIVE-YEAR FUNDING PLAN Table 3-6: Five-Year Funding Roll-up consolidates the funding requirements identified in Section 3 and provides the projected maintenance funding requirement for CHAS. Table 3-6: Five-Year Funding Roll-up All funds are in current year K$. Work Element FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 PM/PdM PGM Repair Trouble Calls ROI Subtotal Special Programs Subtotal Total 4 .0 MAINTENANCE CHAS and its predecessors have been maintaining, repairing and replacing systems in the AFA program for years. The true questions: Are we providing a sufficient level of reliability? Is each maintenance dollar used as effectively as possible? CHAS has identified three key strategic initiatives to address these questions: Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM), long- range planning, and CMMS. This section describes these initiatives, along with other aspects of the maintenance process which support them. 4.1 MAINTENANCE ORGANIZATION CHAS Maintenance Organization resides in: Engineering Services Division, responsible for providing/controlling the 5-year maintenance plans Work Management Division, responsible for the Master Maintenance Plan and organizing facility support work control Maintenance Operations Division, responsible for completion of facility support work requirements We will partner with our USAFA customer counterparts to effectively plan work and ensure that our long- and short-term plans align with Academy priorities, goals, and objectives. This partnering process will help minimize the potential for scheduling conflicts while optimizing the support to planned activities across the installation. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT 4.2 MAINTENANCE PERFORMANCE “Reduced cost of preventive maintenance, enhanced system reliability, resulting in fewer equipment outages, and improved data to plan for and justify long range equipment replacement projects”. This excerpt from the CHAS proposal, establishes the dimensions of CHAS maintenance performance. Most current AFA maintenance tasks were designed for systems with no consideration to life cycle. Two uncertainties are pivotal in the quest for high reliability at low cost. First, is each current maintenance task still right for its equipment? Second, is it more expensive to maintain and operate certain aging items than it would be to replace them? We need to move our response mechanism to a risk-based condition-monitoring system instead of a failure-responding mode. 4.2.1 Initiatives This section describes the CHAS efforts being pursued to improve maintenance and hence improve the reliability and availability of facilities, systems and equipment while doing so in a cost-effective manner. 126.96.36.199 Maintenance Planning Maintenance Planning consists of Annual Work Plans (AWP), 5 year plan, and the maintenance budgeting process. The 5 year plan is the primary tool for creating a proactive approach to maintenance as opposed to reactive and hence leads to long-term improvements in system reliability and cost. One of the primary aims of the 5 year plan is to determine how much of the maintenance budget should be devoted to programmed maintenance (PGM) and system replacements (ROI). Striking the proper balance between these elements and other maintenance categories (PM, PdM, and repairs) will help to minimize the cost of maintenance required to achieve the desired reliability. In addition to this balance, the 5 year plan defines the major maintenance priorities for the AFA; in other words, if there is insufficient budget to fund all the identified maintenance activities, the 5 year plan determines which tasks should be carried out, and which deferred. This process operates in the following manner. PM and PdM budget needs are generally derived from MAXIMO, as these are scheduled activities. Unplanned repairs are forecast from historical data, also from MAXIMO. PGM and ROI are developed each year by analyzing maintenance activities. The RCM teams also perform risk assessments on these identified projects to determine their risk score. These system level PGM and ROI estimates are rolled up into the 5 year plan to present a complete budget picture. Backlog of maintenance and repair (BMAR) determinations will be developed and the results collected into the MMP. Based on funding realities that result from the budget process, lower priority PGM and ROI projects (based on their risk assessment scores) will become part of the BMAR and hence unfunded for that year. CHAS will determine how to manage the effects of the BMAR (see the section on BMAR). Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT The 5 year plan is developed based on information from a variety of sources, including MAXIMO and Condition Assessments (CA). The AWP is the first year of the 5 year plan and forms the bridge between 5 year plan and maintenance actions scheduled in MAXIMO. See Risk Management Process. 188.8.131.52 5 Year Plans The development, maintenance, and execution of 5-year plans will be a team effort involving the entire CH2M HILL Academy Services team, in partnership with USAFA CE/DRU staff. Integrating the Maintenance Engineering functions within the Engineering Services Division will facilitate the sharing of information between engineers and help ensure comprehensive, well- coordinated 5-year plans. Whenever a plan needs to be updated or a new one created, the first step will be to obtain an updated condition assessment for the affected infrastructure component, utilizing onsite resources as well as reach-back for system experts who have worked on previous infrastructure assessments at USAFA. Shop craftsmen from the Maintenance Operations Division shops will always be included as a member of the assessment team. This team will verify that all previously scheduled work has been completed and determine the amount of degradation that has occurred since the last plan update. Step two will be to partner with USAFA CE/DRU staffs to ensure we share the same vision. When available, USAFA CE/DRU staff will be included in the step one assessment process as well. After coordination and agreement on the assessment result, requirements will be costed and prioritized using a collaborative, iterative review process. Unlike many of our competitors, we have a large array of readily available corporate support for surge and technical expertise, whether for cost estimating, technical solutions, or knowledge of USAF policies and experience with USAF processes. Finally, the plan will be published and approval gained through the USAFA chain of command. Following the approval of each 5-year plan, the project programmers will submit USAF Form 332s to the Work Management Division within 30 calendar days so that timely project programming can begin. There can be no realistic AFA 5 year plan without the understanding of long-range needs at the individual system level. This detailed understanding can only come from the engineers and technicians directly associated with the individual systems. A method of capturing this understanding and rolling it up into the 5 year plan is therefore required. CHAS will use maintenance trends, costs, repair, and life-cycle analysis for this purpose. PM, PdM, and repair line-items are not generally included as these are forecast from MAXIMO; the exception being the accounting of major changes to expected PM, PdM, and repair levels. In the first columns, the spreadsheet lists all the facilities, systems, and equipment for which CHAS is responsible. The level of detail is determined by those performing the analysis and should support the ability to identify the reasoning behind the cost projections. Years are listed chronologically across the top to form a matrix. For each facility, system, or piece of equipment, the team identifies the PGM and ROI funding requirements expected, and in which Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT year. Columns on the right of the spreadsheet calculate risk management scores (see section on risk management) and also contain fields for explanation of the required PGM or ROI. Table 0-1: Example System-level 5 Year Plan spreadsheet equipment task 2007 2008 2009 2010 … … risk score description AF-1342 PGM $14k 18 overhaul AF-1214 ROI $28k 20 replace… AF-1418 PGM $8k 12 overhaul… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … Total -- $1.3M $1.8M $1.5M $1.1M … .. -- -- Management teams review these spreadsheets with the system teams to ensure consistency, particularly of the risk management scoring. The spreadsheets are exported to a common, local database so that CHAS management can make budget projections and provide feedback to system teams. Once each year, to support the annual revision of this CHAS Maintenance Plan, these local databases are collected by WMG and combined to support the budget projections contained in Section 3.0. Planning horizons in excess of five years are preferable. The expense of equipment replacement, even when very prudent, is often a bitter pill to swallow; with a five-year planning horizon, teams may be tempted to delay such expenses if they feel they can “band-aide” the equipment for five years. As a result, important major expenditures may never be properly planned. With a longer range planning horizon of between 10 and 30 years, teams must face up to such necessities. This is one of the ways that such long-range planning can make our approach to maintenance proactive rather than reactive, ultimately saving money and improving reliability. The planning horizon is, however, technology-dependent. Computer technology is likely to change radically in the coming years, making 30-year projections more fanciful than useful. In March 2006, CH2M HILL completed a detailed assessment of ten USAFA infrastructures under AFCESA Contract Number FO8637-03-D-6997 (Task Order 0040) to determine condition ratings. Additionally, the studies recommend projects that would eliminate “Unsatisfactory” and “Degraded” infrastructure conditions. The ten infrastructure systems evaluated in this assessment included electric distribution, natural gas, wastewater collection, wastewater treatment plant, non-potable water, storm drainage, high temperature hot water, HVAC, pavements, and bridges. Through this assessment, we gained an appreciation of the many challenges in maintaining the existing infrastructure at the Academy. This study will be our baseline for assessing facilities and infrastructure as part of developing the 5-year plan. Working from this baseline, personnel from our Engineering Services Division (ESD), trade technicians; and the RE will further assess, or perform initial assessments of, all USAFA facilities and structures. As these assessments are completed, results and findings will be used to determine the maintenance and capital investments over a 5-year period, the 5-year Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT plan. For the MMP installed equipment, the trade technicians will report equipment conditions to their supervisor for forwarding to the RE who will evaluate the equipment and determine the approximate life remaining. If necessary, the RE will recommend to DRU the remedial actions required to extend equipments life. With DRU approval of the remedial actions, more time will be “bought” to enable replacement programming in the 5-year plan. For equipment that’s not in jeopardy of failing within the next two or three years, the expected remaining life expectancy will be provided to the ESD for programming in the 5-year plan, or as appropriate, in the out years. In addition to assessment of the equipment within the facilities, the ESD will evaluate the facility itself. As an example, if it is determined the facility roof needs immediate attention, ESD will provide recommend remedial actions to DRU for approval. These remedial actions will “buy time” so that the roof can be programmed into the 5-year plan. If the roof is not in jeopardy of failure within the next two or three years, the ESD will program its replacement in the current 5-year plan, or as appropriate, in the out years. In addition to the facilities assessment, the ESD will use the ten infrastructure assessment completed by CH2M HILL in March 2006 as the baseline for updating the ten infrastructures previously assessed. If the infrastructures were not evaluated in March 2006, an initial assessment will be performed by ESD. Actions necessary to correct the identified “Unsatisfactory” and “Degraded” infrastructure conditions will be programmed into the current 5-year plan, or as appropriate, in the out years. For the most part, metrics for PM performance will be automatically tracked in Maximo. Examples include PWS 184.108.40.206.2.1, direct scheduled and planned work backlog and status for the current month and timeliness stipulated in PWS 220.127.116.11.1. As work is completed in Maximo, when the monthly performance report is run from Maximo, these metrics will be automatically calculated and the results reported to the Contracting Officer (CO). Other metrics, like those pertinent to PM in the Service Delivery Summary (SDS), will also be tracked and reported to the CO monthly. Examples include how well we are maintaining the 5-year maintenance plans, how well we are closing completed work and how well we are implementing and executing the PM portion of the MMP. Additionally, items from the PWS, like how well we are maintaining the 5-year maintenance plans will also be reported monthly. CHAS has created a spreadsheet of all Work Control Report(s) and deliverables required by our contract. CHAS will ensure all items on this spreadsheet will be delivered to the CO in a professional and timely manner. We intend to comply will all terms and conditions of our contract. 18.104.22.168 Annual Work Plan (AWP) The AWP bridges the gap between 5 Year plan and day-to-day execution. The Annual Work Plan has three purposes: identify budget requirements, identify optimal mix of maintenance (replenish, refurbish, repair, replace, redesign), and plan work and resources including non-maintenance activities that vie for CHAS resources. A draft is created for budgeting purposes. After budgeting, the final AWP is developed. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT AWP is primarily a list of activities contained in a database, along with “wedges” for other items, like trouble calls. The AWP feeds the budget process and drives the identification of the Backlog of Maintenance and Repair (BMAR). This section is not complete. 22.214.171.124 Condition Assessments Condition Assessments (CA) are well-defined inspections of facilities, systems and equipment to determine the extent of deterioration. The output of each assessment is an estimate of the cost and timing of necessary repairs. Check-sheets, unique to each type of equipment, are used to collect the inspection information in a repeatable way. Each aspect of degradation is evaluated using a common scoring method (see Table 0-2). Table 0-2: Condition Assessment Codes CODE CONDITION DESCRIPTION 1 Excellent No work required. Regardless of age, inspected item is fully operational with no deficiencies or signs of wear. 2 Good A limited number of minor maintenance items are needed, but these items do not have to be corrected in order to keep the item operational (for example, minor re-caulking, lubrication, cleaning). 3 Fair Several minor repairs are needed. A moderate amount of wear and tear is evident (for example, minor corrosion on motor housing, water lines that are showing signs of deterioration based on frequency of rupture and on fiber-optic borescope inspections). Item should be repaired within 3 - 5 years. 4 Poor Significant repairs are needed, where the item exhibits broken parts, excessive wear and tear and significant corrosion and decay. The item is technically obsolete. Item should be repaired within 1 - 2 years. 5 Bad Replacement or major overhaul is needed within less than 1 year. This information flows into the budget projections for each system’s 5 year plans. The CA can then manifest itself in the form of a necessary modification, a repair task, or an element of BMAR if left without funding. The aggregate of the condition assessments provide an overall picture of site condition. Not all pieces of equipment require the same level of condition assessment; many may require no assessment at all. Examples include computer equipment, whose failure is usually unrelated to visual condition, and run-to-failure items (why waste the time inspecting something you wouldn’t bother restoring anyway). Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT All facilities, systems, and equipment needing assessment will be inspected over a one-year period commencing September 1, 2007. After that time, the items will be reassessed on a frequency determined by the Maintenance Engineer, but not to exceed once every five years. The CA information will be collected in EMS. Status reports on Condition Assessments will be generated on an annual basis. The information will be reported by facility, equipment number, condition code and repair cost. The reports will also develop trends as compared to previous years’ data, once a baseline of information has been developed (show examples of the CA reports). 126.96.36.199 BMAR The backlog of maintenance and repair (BMAR) is “the total of essential but unfunded … maintenance work necessary to bring AFA Installations to the required … maintenance standards. It is work that should be accomplished during the year but cannot be accomplished within available resources.” BMAR is an excellent indicator of the general condition of facilities, systems and equipment, presuming that the data is accurate. BMAR is measured in units of dollars, though often it is more illustrative to normalize it as a percentage of Current Replacement Value (CRV). The goal is to reduce BMAR to a “manageable” level since a large BMAR is indicative of unreliable systems that require excessive reactive maintenance. The first step in calculating the BMAR is to sum the cost of all planned maintenance (including ROI) deemed to be necessary in the next year. This “next year” time-frame for a system is determined either by the condition assessment codes or by risk assessment. Following the budget process, a budget line is established to determine how many of the higher-priority planned maintenance activities will be executed. Those that are “below the line” or unfunded become part of the BMAR. CHAS will manage the BMAR in three ways. 1. Develop an accurate picture of BMAR through consistent condition assessments and project risk assessments. 2. Seek all possible funds to accomplish as many of the planned maintenance items as possible. 3. System teams will perform a modified version of Potential Problem Analysis on the items not funded to determine work-around procedures or contingency actions. The goal of this is to minimize risks to the AFA. 188.8.131.52 Maintenance Execution CHAS is pursuing several on-going efforts to improve the execution of maintenance tasks with an emphasis on efficiency. EMS, which will provide a means to increase efficiency on many fronts, is described in the next section. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT 184.108.40.206 EMS (MAXIMO) CHAS is implementing a Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS): MAXIMO (a part of EMS). In addition to providing a maintenance scheduling tool and other services, the CMMS System will provide metrics on schedule performance, failure rates, equipment histories, and asset condition. It will also contain information on the maintenance procedures and tactics for each facility and piece of equipment. 220.127.116.11 Master Equipment List The Master Equipment List (MEL) is a listing of all facilities, systems and equipment on the contract. The MEL will provide a means for collecting metric data in support of CHAS management and AFA insight requirements. As important, the MEL will provide a declarative means of establishing the scope of the Maintenance Plan and CHAS maintenance responsibilities. The MEL allows the following elements to be connected: CMMS and its PM data, Condition Assessment databases System 5 year Planning spreadsheets System Risk Assessments RCM analyses Existing system documentation (FMEA, spares analyses) Financial systems The MEL will be contained within the EMS. The MEL will contain the following fields: site, facility, system, equipment, item control number, and maintenance responsibility codes. Site CMMS equipment lists and CHAS S.O.W. Appendix A-2 Systems without Condition Assessments Systems without Long-range Plans Systems without RCM analyses Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT Equipment Inventory Process Complete inventory/assessment of all equipment will result in improved preventive maintenance work load data. 18.104.22.168 Maintenance Improvement Maintenance improvement uses Reliability Centered Maintenance to optimize individual maintenance procedures. At the CHAS management level, it is important to improve broad maintenance policies and procedures that support maintenance activities. CHAS management has the major responsibility for improving processes. A CHAS Maintenance Management Board will be formed to pursue opportunities at the contract level and to work with AFA CE management. 22.214.171.124 RCM We propose to partner with USAFA in implementing a phase in/integration of RCM principles into the PM program. The foundation of our RCM program is the ability to analyze workload data for each individual piece of equipment captured and uploaded into Maximo as a result of our equipment assessment. We will collect accurate information on service calls related to every piece of equipment. Implementation of RCM will benefit USAFA in three ways. 1. Reduced cost of preventative maintenance 2. Enhanced system reliability, resulting in fewer equipment outages Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT 3. Improved data to plan for and justify long range equipment replacement projects. These benefits will be realized without risk to equipment or system performance. Our reliability engineer assigned to the Engineering Services Division will lead the RCM implementation process, and form and charter a Facility Systems Working Team (FSWT). The FSWT is comprised of the reliability and maintenance engineers, craftsmen from the appropriate trade, and, whenever possible, a representative from the DRU. Based on existing PM data in the MMP and service call data retrieved from Maximo, the reliability engineer will prioritize systems or equipment items to assess. Priorities will be established based on our analysis of potential payback and mission criticality of the equipment item. One of the first steps in the RCM process is to perform a potential failure analysis of equipment and systems using various maintenance evaluation criteria, such as performance standards and user expectations, to determine the impact on the user in terms of higher maintenance costs, breakdowns, or substandard final products. This evaluation involves considering the following fundamental questions: 1. What are the performance standards for the piece of equipment? 2. Does the equipment perform to the standards and user expectations? 3. What happens to the end user when a failure occurs? 4. Can the failure be eliminated by prediction or other methods? 5. What can be done to prevent failures? 6. Is there a proactive task that will eliminate future problems? 7. The next step is to determine what can be done to prevent failure in terms of predictive, proactive, or other maintenance methods. 8. The RCM Streamlined Logic Diagram in Exhibit 4-4 outlines the thought process the FSWT will follow in performing a failure analysis. One of four possible outcomes will result from this analysis: 9. Define a new PM task and schedule 10. Define a predictive maintenance (PdM) task and schedule 11. Install redundant (backup) units 12. Accept risk and run-to-failure (least desirable) Results of this analysis are presented to USAFA for approval prior to implementation. If the accepted solution is to define and schedule PdM tasks, predictive testing and inspection (PT&I) becomes a recurring task in our PM program. Predictive testing monitors equipment operating parameters against established baselines. By using proven diagnostics tools to support condition monitoring, data acquisition, and trend analysis, we will be able to identify conditions that indicate failures. The goal of CHAS’s Reliability Centered Maintenance (RCM) program is to improve reliability and reduce maintenance costs by applying the optimal maintenance tactic to each facility and piece of equipment. We believe there are opportunities for significant improvement and that RCM provides the best methodology for achieving such improvements. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT The CHAS RCM deployment strategy is to deploy RCM policy, guidelines, and tools at the level of engineers and technicians who work directly with the systems. To optimize benefit at a reasonable cost, our RCM implementation allows two types of RCM analysis: streamlined and rigorous. The streamlined approach can be performed quickly and is applied to systems that are generally less critical and less costly to maintain; a rigorous analysis on such systems would not be cost effective. In the streamlined approach, a small team of engineers and technicians identifies key components in the system of interest based on the team’s experience. For the key component(s), the team applies the RCM Logic Tree (see figure) to determine the optimal maintenance tactic for the component. The RCM Logic Tree consists of seven decisions, the answers to which determines the optimal maintenance tactic. The amount of analysis the team applies to each of these decisions should be commensurate with the priority of the equipment. With reliable, non-critical equipment, the team can make on-the-spot decisions based on experience and judgment alone. More critical systems may require more detailed analysis of some of the decisions, such as examination of equipment history. The logic tree forms an effective means of documenting the decisions made. Critical systems or systems with a history of expensive maintenance may require a rigorous analysis. The rigorous analysis is an expansion of the streamlined approach and is still centered around the RCM Logic Tree. The rigorous analysis provides additional tools to identify key components and assist in the logic tree decisions. In this approach, the system team identifies the systems key functions, possible failure modes, the effects of those failures, and the possible causes of those failures. The causes help the team identify the key components in the system. The effects are used to help make the decisions in the RCM Logic Tree. CHAS has two strategies for applying RCM analysis: system-oriented and procedure-based. The more traditional system-oriented approach applies RCM to the system in question and derives the maintenance tactics which then drives documented maintenance instructions. The procedure- based approach starts at the existing maintenance task documents (PMIs, etc.) and uses RCM to validate or refine the existing maintenance tactic. Specifically, for each documented PM, the failure mode associated with the PM is identified; then the PM (and any other PMs related to that failure mode) is reevaluated using RCM tools. RCM Streamlined Logic Diagram The logical failure analysis process is key to improving PM program through RCM. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT Table 0-3: Choosing an RCM Approach for a Given System Non-critical, reliable Critical or Costly Well-established PMI’s and Procedure-based Back-filling strategy, Maintenance Histories strategy, streamlined detailed analysis analysis Less-established PMI’s or System-oriented strategy, System-oriented strategy, Maintenance Histories streamlined analysis detailed analysis Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT In either strategy, the RCM analysis still becomes tied to the MEL; every analysis will reference an item on the MEL. To make best use of our limited resources, RCM must be deployed in an efficient manner. To this end, all facilities, equipment, and systems must be identified and prioritized so that RCM can be applied first to situations where it will have the most significant benefit. The means of prioritization are… Responsibility for implementing the RCM process will rest with the maintenance engineer and reliability engineer supported by CHAS management. A CHAS RCM Council consisting of CHAS managers has been established to develop and deploy the policy, as well as to monitor the effectiveness of the program. The RCM analysis is a team process. Identifying key components, determining criticality, assessing failure history and other elements takes the knowledge, experience and cooperation of engineers, operators, technicians, and those experienced in RCM analysis and maintenance technologies. Such participation is also critical to achieving the sense of ownership necessary to successfully execute any changes derived from the analysis. RCM is often referred to in the literature as a “living process.” RCM analyses are not perfect; teams are usually faced with imperfect information when making decisions. It is therefore important to revisit each analysis periodically to take into account new information, particularly failure history and equipment condition. Critical systems and systems with significant failures should be reevaluated annually. Other RCM analyses should be revisited every two to five years, depending on criticality and failure frequencies. The frequency of evaluation shall be maintained as a scheduled maintenance task in the CMMS. Personnel must be well trained to employ RCM effectively. A common training program will be established across CHAS to provide a consistent approach. With a common training program, not only will RCM theory be deployed consistently, but the CHAS RCM procedures can be made part of the training. It is anticipated that approximately 125 people will be trained through the program. Table 0-4: RCM Training Needs Total Engineering 16 Technicians 100 Manageme 8 nt Total 124 It is expected that through the application of RCM three direct benefits will be realized: a reduction in PM task frequencies, an increased use of predictive technologies to eliminate many PM tasks, and design changes to increase the inherent reliability of systems. Such Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT gains attributable to RCM will be tracked by the RCM group through use of the RCM database attached to the MEL backbone; PdM cost savings will be tracked in detail by the CHAS Work Control Center. 126.96.36.199 Predictive Maintenance (PdM) Sometimes referred to as condition monitoring, PdM is a powerful strategy for CHAS to reduce system failures while also reducing the reliance on expensive preventive maintenance tasks. Owing to these major benefits, CHAS has already begun major initiatives to deploy PdM technologies at an accelerated rate. PdM capabilities include ferrography, thermography, laser alignment, vibration analysis, and other PdM technologies. CHAS will deploy PdM in a two- phase approach. In the first phase, our Reliability Engineer will work with engineers and technicians to identify high-yield opportunities for this technology. This “low-hanging fruit” phase will allow CHAS to benefit from PdM quickly. This phase will occur during FY’08. The second phase is the deployment of RCM (see section …), a technique which will identify further effective applications of PdM. The RCM deployment will represent a slower, but more thorough, identification of PdM opportunities. Opportunities are expected to outstrip PdM capabilities in FY’10. Additional PdM capacity will be added in the coming budget years commensurate with the expected pay-back. Table 0-5: Tools and Equipment Analysis displays the projected special PdM tools or equipment for CHAS for the next five years. PdM Tools PdM tools will reduce lifecycle cost. Problems Found using Testing PdM Testing Technologies Technologies Vibration Monitoring unbalanced rotating parts misalignment of couplings and bearings bent shafts Application of vibration monitoring worn, eccentric, or damaged parts helps determine the condition of bad drive belts or chains Definition rotating equipment and structural bad bearings stability in a system torque variations electromagnetic forces Identify degrading conditions in facilities Infrared Thermography IRT electrical sustems such as transformers, motor control centers, switchgears, substations, panel boards, switch yards, naf power lines. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT Reliable technique for finding the moisture- Application of infrared detection induced temperature effects that charactize Definition instruments to identify temp roof leaks, and for determining the thermal differences in mechanical and efficiency of heat exchangers, boilers, building electrical systems envelops etc. In mechanical systems, IRT can identify blocked flow conditions in heat exchangers, condensers, transformer cooling radiators, and pipes. Verify fuel level in large containers such as fuel tanks. Leak detection in pressure and vacuum Passive (Airbourne) Ultrasonics systems for example boilers, heat exchangers, condensers, chillers, distillation columns, vacuum furnaces, speciality gas systems. Other applications include bearing inspection, steam trap inspection, valve blow by, pump Airbourne Ultrasonic devices are cavitation, detection of corona in switch gears, Definition highly sensitive listening guns compressor valve analysis, integrity of deals and gaskets in tanks, pipe systems, and large walk-in boxes. Lubricant and Wear Particle Analy Determine machine mechanical wear condition Determine the lubricant condition Determine if the lubricant has become contaminated Required PT&I will be scheduled through Maximo to ensure that tests and inspections are performed on a consistent basis and do not interfere with mission requirements, significantly reducing operational risks. Our experience has shown that implementing RCM in concert with these PdM approaches/ tools results in reduced lifecycle maintenance costs while increasing the reliability and end-user satisfaction of critical systems. Use of these RCM processes, tools, and techniques on other base operations contracts has resulted in a 10 percent reduction in PM staff hours while improving equipment reliability. Our proactive approaches to PM and PdM will result in achieving the best practice, industry standard maintenance profile of 15 percent reactive, 40 percent PM, and 45 percent PdM. We expect only 15 percent of our maintenance effort will be committed to emergency failures. The bulk of our effort will be committed to preventing failures and predicting (planned) failures where replacement parts are on hand, our craftsmen work schedules are in place, and downtime is limited and coordinated with our customers. We understand this proactive approach represents a significant cultural and operational change from the reactive maintenance procedures currently in place. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT Table 0-5: Tools and Equipment Analysis All funds are in current year K$ Tools or Test Fiscal Year Equipment FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Total 188.8.131.52 Trouble Calls and Repair (DSW) We will exceed performance times for DSW using the following processes and tools: Centralized work management Field inspectors and rapid response crews Schedule/materials coordinators imbedded in the shops Paperless processes using PDAs Parts expediters (Mobile Warehouse) All customer requests are received in our Work Control Center, the nerve center of our Work Management Division. Our customer service representatives (CSRs) will be trained in customer service techniques to politely and courteously obtain information from the customer to accurately assess the scope of work and its priority. Established training guides from other projects will be used; personnel receiving service calls after hours will receive the same training. Once the CSRs determine the priority of the work request, they will brief the customer on the process for completing the work and the anticipated completion date. At the end of the call, our customers will always know: The job number assigned to their request The priority assigned (emergency, urgent, or routine) and the significance of these rankings What the next step is and when it should take place (e.g., the request has to go the Work Request Review Panel (WRRP) There will be times when the exact scope of a work request cannot be determined from the customer’s input. In these situations, we will dispatch our engineering technician/field inspector from work control to meet with the customer and make an on-the-spot evaluation of the requirement; the original comments and inspection notes will be input into the Maximo job plan and stay with it until the job is closed. The immediate dispatch of engineering technicians to the field to assess the requirement will ensure that task work scopes are accurately defined up-front. This will dramatically reduce the number of “look and leave” calls when craftsmen mobilize to jobsites only to find that the work assignment is significantly different than the tasks specified in the job plan. After a work request is received, the scope is established, and a priority is assigned, DSW is executed in accordance with the flow diagram shown as Exhibit 4-7. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT Emergency Calls For emergency calls, the service call representative immediately dispatches the craftsmen. We will have pre-identified, at the weekly scheduling meeting, the specific craftsmen who are responsible for responding to emergencies that occur during both on- and off-duty hours. Normally, craftsmen selected to cover emergencies will include those who: (1) possess a broad spectrum of skills to handle emergencies calls/situations, and (2) have current assignments that would have the least impact on USAFA operations and/or customer service, should their assigned work be interrupted to provide timely response to emergency requirements. The craftsmen assigned to respond to emergency calls will, at a minimum: Fix the problem Eliminate the emergency and down-grade the work to urgent or routine Ask for additional assistance and/or materials necessary to achieve the above objectives Urgent Calls Urgent calls will be treated in much the same way as emergencies, except that, normally, craftsman will not be pulled off another job to respond to an urgent requirement. Excepting SDS item 3, close out Completed work records per Below Standards (<9 completed work on time 90% of month 12-days) the time (10 work days). Remaining applicable Ensure all completed work is percentage within 12 days. closed out. Perform PM IAW the schedule Completed PM per month Below Standards (<9 90% on time, and the remaining within 5 additional da applicable percentage within 5 Implement and execute the PM additional workdays. portion of the MMP. Eliminate the cause of Requests responded to and Below Standards (<9 emergencies within 24 hours time to complete each month 48 hours) 98% of the time. Remaining Respond to and eliminate applicable percentage within 48 emergency service calls IAW hours of notification. PWS standards. Complete and close out urgents Requests responded to and Below Standards Urg within 7 days, 95% of the time. time to complete each month (<95%)(<100% in 9 d Respond to and eliminate urgent Remaining applicable service calls IAW PWS percentage within 9 days of standards. notification. Complete and close out routines Requests responded to and Below Standards (<9 within 30 days 90% of the time. time to complete each month 60 days) Respond to and eliminate routine Remaining applicable service calls IAW PWS percentage within 60 days. standards. Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page 3/9/2014 DRAFT Centralized Work Management System Centralized work management ensures positive control over DSW work requests. Our team recognizes that there can be high visibility or Command Intent work that needs to be handled as an emergency manner. With this in mind, we have proposed a PWS change that allows the Government COR to upgrade 5 percent of the DSW work to emergency status. For those cases, we have included in our Work Management Division two GMMs designated as a Rapid Response Crew. These individuals possess a wide variety of skills and experience to facilitate our timely response, putting these service call “fires” out immediately. When not responding to emergencies, they will be assigned to small routine jobs where they can be easily diverted without significant adverse impacts to operations and/or customer service. Craftsmen assigned responsibility for responding to emergency and urgent jobs will be required to maintain a minimum inventory of materials in their vehicles to enhance our ability to fix a variety of problems on the spot. When additional materials and/or specialty tools are required, the craftsmen will call on our warehouse personnel and the necessary supplies will be dispatched to the job site by our Material Expeditor. This approach allows the craftsmen to maintain complete focus on repair work and eliminates time to travel back and forth from the job site to the warehouse. If parts need 1 3/9/2014 DRAFT to be ordered, the requisition will be placed immediately and the job site will be secured to minimize safety hazards. All job orders originally opened as emergency or urgent work will be reviewed by our production supervisor before they can be downgraded to a lower category. The production supervisor will be responsible for reviewing existing open emergency and urgent job statuses with the work control manager and quality, safety, and environmental (QS&E) manager to ensure we have taken all the necessary actions to meet established performance metrics and response time goals, and comply with USAFA/team QS&E requirements. The web-based EMS enables our senior managers and customers to monitor progress on job backlogs, job completion performance metrics, associated job performance trends, and other relevant project delivery data. Routine Calls Work identified as routine will be further categorized based on the four levels of priority in accordance with AFI 32-1001 requirements. Priority 3 and Priority 4 work will be kept in the system and, where appropriate, consolidated for developing project packages. Priority 1 and Priority 2 work will first be assessed by our CSRs to determine if it exceeds the 100-hour or $7,500 material cost threshold limits. Our CSRs and production supervisor will be able to make the assessment 90-percent of the time by evaluating customer input and costing data available within our EMS databases. In those cases where it is not clear that either thresholds will or will not be exceeded, our engineering technicians/field inspectors will be dispatched to the site to develop a detailed rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimate. Work exceeding the threshold will be processed as Top Ten Planned Work (TTPW) or project planned work. Routine Priority 1 and Priority 2 work below the threshold limit will be accomplished using our scheduling and controlling work processes described above. The first step is to determine if materials are required to complete the work. The job is “logged-out” in Maximo to the shop supervisor responsible for the work, who will be given 5 days to return the work order as either: (1) “no materials required—ready to schedule work” or (2) “materials ordered” with a due-date that allows the work order to be completed within the 20-day performance requirement. In the second case, the work order is transferred back to the Work Control Center and Maximo is updated to notify managers that job completion status is “awaiting materials.” Automating our work order tracking processes and operating in a paperless environment ensures that our managers will never lose a customer request. As part of our weekly scheduling meetings, routine work ready for scheduling (i.e., material available) will be incorporated into our work control databases and scheduled for completion within the following week based on available hours for craft and age of the job. At these meetings, all routine work awaiting materials will be reviewed and all past-due material/supply deliveries will receive the production supervisor’s immediate attention. For repetitive, routine types of work, we will establish collection work orders as a means to collect and track material and labor costs. Through the EMS, we will have real-time information on labor and material expenditures for every collection work order. Typically, these collection work orders will be used for events, snow removal, street sweeping, etc. Delivering repetitive and/or routine work in a high-quality manner will be ensured 2 3/9/2014 DRAFT through developed Maximo job plans that give our workers, in detail, the required steps and materials/supplies to complete recurring work. As detailed in the quality section of this Subfactor, refining job plans through customer feedback and team inspection data will result in completing recurring work scopes in a manner that exceeds USAFA expectations. Base Routine Service Calls (Priority 1&2) Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep FY08 FY09 FY10 Emergency Service Calls Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep FY08 FY09 FY10 Urgent Service Calls Year Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep FY08 FY09 FY10 184.108.40.206 Maintenance Management Board CHAS will establish a Maintenance Management Board to revise the plan and integrate maintenance activities across the CHAS. The board will be comprised of maintenance representatives from each of the CHAS sites and will communicate by e-mail and through quarterly conference calls. The charter of the board is to improve top-level maintenance policies for the betterment of CHAS and its customer and to facilitate communication and the exchange of ideas. Planned Work Management Methodology Priority 1 and Priority 2 routine work that exceeds 100 labor hours or $7,500 in material costs will be categorized as planned work. If completing work scope requires design services from a registered engineer or architect, then the work is categorized as project work. Integrating our project databases through EMS allows our Work Management Division to track the status of original work requests from the time a customer calls in until the job is closed out. If a work request becomes a project, the project number will be entered in the work order history and the customer informed. This enables work control staff to track, monitor, and store all information for each and every request. 3 3/9/2014 DRAFT Work Order Documentation and Closeout CH2M HILL Academy Services will exceed PWS requirements in accomplishing work order documentation/ closeout. Our EMS will be the silver thread woven throughout project management at USAFA. This proven management program will be used each and every day by all craftsmen, managers, and work control technicians to instantaneously update effort and work status. Our team will implement strict procedures that ensure compliance with work order documentation and closeout. These procedures are integrated into our EMS, which will generate electronic notifications to assigned managers identifying areas of documentation/closeout procedure deficiencies. Co-locating the real property technician alongside the production control technician ensures eye contact and accountability to tracking closeout and capitalization. PDAs will be used by craftsmen to account for man-hours and materials, and to order/track the status of materials. The PDAs are synchronized daily with data exchanged with EMS. Information in EMS is timely, accurate, and visible to the customer. The IT Services Branch will develop interfaces between EMS and ACES/IWIMS. Backups will be accomplished daily to ensure data is available to USAFA. Our Integrated Work Control Process (IWCP), discussed in Subfactor 2 – Program Management, will facilitate work order documentation, tracking, variance trending, quality monitoring, and closeout. Our EMS is a web-based tool that integrates all project performance databases across functional areas. When combined, our IWCP and EMS provide the means by which we manage and document work order delivery functions in near real-time. Work order documentation will be meticulously maintained from the moment a work request is issued through implementation of the following processes: Documentation of all work orders begins immediately upon receipt of a work request from USAFA customers. These data are inputted into our EMS-Maximo work control databases. This function is handled by our Work Management Division, Work Control Center. Each task will be assigned a unique work order number and tracked in Maximo. These unique numbers provide the means by which our integrated systems can link and compile all data pertaining to work order execution. As assigned tasks are completed, work order documentation becomes an automated function as EMS linkage between our Maximo, Costpoint, and Deltek systems captures all labor and material costs for each task. Entry of these data are facilitated via electronic downloads from PDAs issued to facility maintenance staff. Team quality performance for each task is documented through both branch foreman and customer inputs into the EMS-iSIGHT quality module. Customer oversight of our team’s documentation processes are easily accomplished through Internet access to our EMS Dashboard. Routine back-up of team electronic databases and transfer of appropriate work order files into USAFA databases (i.e., IWIMS, ACES, etc) will be completed in accordance with the procedures detailed in the sections below to ensure proper preservation of project documentation files. Closeout of work orders will involve completing the following procedures managed by our Work Control Center. 4 3/9/2014 DRAFT Confirm/document that all work has been completed in accordance with work order requirements. Review project performance data to ensure all work order tasks are captured and associated charges have been properly allocated. Perform analysis of work order estimates versus actual estimates. Solicit customer feedback from USAFA counterparts on work order delivery performance and quality. Customers are encouraged to submit performance/quality via call in or email. Data captured is loaded into EMS-iSIGHT databases. Forward final “as-built” drawings as appropriate to Engineering Services Division for incorporation into USAFA Master Drawings and update GIS/GeoBase databases as appropriate per the procedures described below. Complete work order debriefings on random work orders as part of our continuous improvement/QC programs. Close work order to capture feedback and lessons learned in EMS. Table 0-6 Level Improvement responsibility Maintenance Management Board CHAS-level policies CHAS site management Maintenance processes, operating procedures System-level teams, organizations Maintenance tasks (e.g., PMs) Each level has strong input into improvements in the level above. For example, site management may choose to put together a process improvement team comprised of engineers and technicians to reengineer a maintenance process. The Maintenance Management Board is virtually powerless without the input, cooperation and response of site management. The board, therefore, is primarily a facilitator of communication and change. 220.127.116.11 Initiative Analysis This section will contain a breakdown of funding requirements for the various initiatives described in this section. Much of this table is also included in the Special Projects section in Section 3. 5 3/9/2014 DRAFT Table 0-7: Initiatives Funding All funds are in current year K$. Initiative Fiscal Year FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 Expected Cost Avoided Cost Total 4.2.2 Performance Monitoring This sub-section develops the indicators used to assess CHAS maintenance performance. See Appendix E for a further discussion of Performance Monitoring. 18.104.22.168 PM & PdM Task Schedule Performance Table 0-8: PM & PdM Tasks Completed as a Percentage of Tasks Scheduled identifies CHAS’s success at performing scheduled maintenance tasks. PdM tasks will be tracked separately from PM tasks. This metric will be reported on a monthly basis. Table 0-8: PM & PdM Tasks Completed as a Percentage of Tasks Scheduled Activity Fiscal Year FY08 FY09 PM Base Zone Cadet Zone Hospital Other PdM Base Zone Cadet Zone Hospital Other Total 22.214.171.124 Downtime and Availability The value of a metric is often best determined by the customer affected. Many CHAS systems are used intermittently and this has strong bearing on how downtime is defined. If a system is down for maintenance or repair when the system is not scheduled for use, the impact to the customer is less significant than if the system goes down during a critical operation. It may therefore be appropriate to only measure the downtime of the operation and not the equipment. 6 3/9/2014 DRAFT Downtime and availability metrics will be partnered with the affected customer. CHAS will phase in its downtime metric, beginning with the most critical operations. Downtime metrics will be kept for the items listed in Table 0-9: Maintenance-induced Critical Operation Downtime beginning in FY ’08. Table 0-9: Maintenance-induced Critical Operation Downtime Operation Fiscal Year FY08 FY09 Base Zone Cadet Zone Hospital Other Total This metric will be recorded annually to develop trends. Individual systems may keep this metric on a more frequent basis. As CHAS learns more about the use of this metric, more operations will be added. 126.96.36.199 Backlog of Maintenance and Repair (BMAR) BMAR is unfunded maintenance work. The table documents the BMAR for previous years to identify the BMAR trend. This metric will be developed annually. Table 0-10: BMAR History All funds are in actual k$. Start is BMAR at start of the fiscal year. Reduction is reduction of BMAR during the year. End is the remaining BMAR at year-end (and becomes the next year Start). BMAR Fiscal Year FY08 FY09 FY10 Start Reduction End 7 3/9/2014 DRAFT 4.3 BUDGET SHORTFALL Table 0-11: Budget Shortfall Action Plan summarizes the incremental plan to accommodate budget limits. Table 0-11: Budget Shortfall Action Plan All funds are in current year K$ Budget Shortfall Action Plan - FY 1998 % $ Amount Planned Action Shortfall 1 Defer or eliminate the planned maintenance items identified on Shortfall (see Appendix XX). Change in BMAR in $. 5 In addition to the above, defer or eliminate the planned maintenance items identified on Shortfall. Change in BMAR in $. 10 In addition to the above, defer or eliminate the planned maintenance items identified on Shortfall. Change in BMAR in $. 15 In addition to the above, defer or eliminate the planned maintenance items identified on Shortfall. Change in BMAR in $. Table 0-12: Budget Plus-up Action Plan summarizes the incremental plan to accommodate budget increases. 8 3/9/2014 DRAFT Table 0-12: Budget Plus-up Action Plan All funds are in current year K$. Budget Plus-up Action Plan - FY 1998 % Plus-up $ Amount Planned Action 1 Add work up to this $ amount as identified in Priority List of Backlogged Work (See Appendix F for an example). Change in BMAR in $. 5 Add work up to this $ amount as identified in Priority List of Backlogged Work. Change in BMAR in $. 10 Add work up to this $ amount as identified in Priority List of Backlogged Work. Change in BMAR in $. 15 Add work up to this $ amount as identified in Priority List of Backlogged Work. Change in BMAR in $. 5.0 Safety Plan Reference: CHAS Safety Plan 6.0 Quality Plan Reference: CHAS Quality Plan 9 3/9/2014 DRAFT APPENDIX A: ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS AWP Annual Work Plan BMAR Backlog of Maintenance and Repair CMMS Computerized Maintenance Management System CRV Current Replacement Value FS Fund Source ISO International Organization for Standardization LH Labor Hours M&O Maintenance and Operations MS Mission Support O&M Operations and Maintenance PBC Performance Based Contract PGM Programmed Maintenance PM Preventive Maintenance POC Point of Contact PdM Predictive Maintenance R&D Research & Development R&PM Research and Program Management RCM Reliability Centered Maintenance ROI Replacement of Obsolete Items TC Trouble Call APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS Assets - Any item of economic value owned by AFA. The item may be physical in nature (tangible) or a right to ownership (intangible) that is expressed in terms of cost or some other value. Capitalized Equipment - Equipment with a unit cost of $5000 or more and a useful life of two years or more, which will not be consumed. Corrective Maintenance – See Repair. -1 3/9/2014 DRAFT Fiscal Year - The Federal Government's yearly accounting period which begins on October 1 and ends on the following September 30. Maintenance – The recurring day-to-day work required to preserve facilities in such a condition that they may be used for their designated purpose. It minimizes or corrects wear and tear and thereby forestalls major repairs. Action taken to retain function (i.e., prevent failure). Actions include PM, PdM, lubrication and minor repair (such as replacing belts and filters), and inspection. Mission Support - A building, area, or system which provides support to the Facility primary mission. Planned Repair - Repair performed prior to failure. Material condition degradation, usually identified through PM, PdM, or other inspection, is repaired to prevent catastrophic failure. Also see Repair. Predictive Maintenance (PdM) – Those testing and inspection activities for facility items that generally require more sophisticated means to identify maintenance requirements than those of preventive maintenance. Sometimes referred to as “Condition-based Maintenance” and “Predictive Testing and Inspection”. Use of advanced technology to assess machinery condition. Replaces maintenance scheduled at time intervals with maintenance scheduled only when the condition of the equipment requires it. The PdM data obtained allows for planning and scheduling preventive maintenance or repairs in advance of failure. Preventive Maintenance (PM) – The planned, scheduled periodic inspection, adjustment, cleaning, lubrication, parts replacement, and minor repair (no larger than trouble call scope) of equipment and systems for which a specific operator is not assigned. PM consists of many checkpoint activities on items that, if disabled, would interfere with essential Academy operation, endanger life or property, or involve high cost or long lead time for replacement. Also called “time-based maintenance” or “interval-based maintenance”. Depending on the intervals set, PM can result in a significant increase in inspections and routine maintenance; however, it should also reduce the frequency and seriousness of machine failures for components with defined, age-related wear patterns. Proactive Maintenance - The collection of efforts to identify, understand, and eliminate future failure. Proactive maintenance activities include the development of design specifications to incorporated maintenance lessons learned and to ensure future maintainability and supportability, the development of repair specifications to eliminate underlining causes of failure, and performing root cause failure analysis to understand why in- service systems failed. -2 3/9/2014 DRAFT Programmed Maintenance (PGM) – Programmed maintenance are those maintenance tasks whose cycle exceeds one year, such as painting a building every fifth year. (This category is different from PM in that if a planned cycle is missed, the original planned work still remains to be accomplished, whereas in PM only the next planned cycle is accomplished instead of doing the work twice, such as two lubrications, two adjustments, or two inspections). Reactive Maintenance - See Repair. Real Property - Includes land, buildings, structures, utility systems, and improvements and appurtenances thereto permanently annexed to land. Also includes collateral equipment (i.e., building-type equipment, built-in equipment and large substantially affixed equipment). Repair – That facility work required to restore a facility or component thereof, including collateral equipment, to a condition substantially equivalent to its originally intended and designed capacity, efficiency, or capability. It includes the substantially equivalent replacements of utility systems and collateral equipment necessitated by incipient or actual breakdown. Also, restoration of function, usually after failure. Also see Planned Repair. APPENDIX C: TROUBLE CALL PROJECTION ESTIMATION The repair and trouble call budget is built upon past history. First determine how much repair work this system has required in the past, then factor in the material condition and the maintenance approach established by the RCM process. For example, suppose you reduce a large amount of scheduled maintenance and replace it with monitoring through a PdM program. Initially you can expect your repair cost to increase because the PdM program is uncovering degraded conditions that must be repaired. They are repaired to reduce the effects of catastrophic failure and to improve the availability to perform operations, testing, research, or whatever the Building or Area is designed to produce. Then, over time, the repair cost should decrease as the systems perform at a higher level of reliability. Carefully consider other funding categories that may influence the out year projections. For example, a Replacement of Obsolete Items project would be expected to reduce the projected repair costs. -3 3/9/2014 DRAFT APPENDIX D: PERFORMANCE MONITORING DEVELOPMENT Indicators can be event metrics or global metrics. Event metrics are those items that are useful for measuring progress toward event type goals, measuring the effect of new initiatives, or winning support for a new approach. While useful, event metrics must be carefully used. For example, when the PdM program is young, you will often be able to identify a significant amount of machinery degradation which can be repaired before catastrophic failure occurs (often avoiding a higher cost for the repair and the associated downtime). Measuring your finds every month, and the avoided costs, are good event metrics because they show how well the new program is working. However, over a long period of time, as you raise the material condition of your machinery systems, you can expect the number of monthly finds to reduce to a fairly stable low level. That could imply (to people unfamiliar with the role of PdM) that the PdM program has become ineffective. But why do you have the PdM program? You have the PdM program to reduce the probability of unexpected failure. So a good global (or strategic) measure would be the number of unexpected failures of monitored equipment or the improved availability due to reduced facility equipment failures. Both of these items should improve with time and should be strategically in line with the AFA mission. Another example is breaking down Repairs (including Trouble Calls) into sub- categories. Repair means to fix something when it fails; the restoration of function. Sometimes we repair items before they fail. Is this maintenance or repair? Most people consider any action that improves the material condition or extends life to be a repair, not maintenance. The general exception to this is the replacement of low cost worn components, such as belts and filters, that do not require significant disassembly of the system or machine and are scheduled PM. As the RCM process is implemented, it is expected that ineffective PM will be replaced with more effective PdM. With increased PdM there will be an increase in identification of degraded material conditions that must be repaired in order to avoid catastrophic failure. Some equipment will be allowed to fail; no PM or PdM will be performed because it is not cost effective. However, it is still Repair when you fix it. The table below has been structured to collect Repair costs in meaningful sub-categories in order to demonstrate progress toward overall lower repair costs and increased availability. Table 4-2 illustrates Repair costs at AFA by sub-categories. These trend data demonstrates progress toward overall lower repair costs and increased availability as a direct result of performance monitoring. -4 3/9/2014 DRAFT Table 0-13: Repair Cost Analysis All funds are in actual year K$. Planned Repair means that degraded condition has been detected and repair action was scheduled prior to catastrophic failure. Repair Fiscal Year Sub-Category FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Run-to-Fail Equipment Trouble Calls All Other Repair Sub-total Run-to-Fail PdM Monitored Equipment Planned Repair Failed Prior to Planned Repair Trouble Calls Other Unexpected Failure Sub-total PdM Monitored All Other Equipment Trouble Calls Other Unexpected Failure Sub-total All Other Equipment Total - All Repair -5 3/9/2014 DRAFT APPENDIX E: PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE MODEL Maintenance is intended to maintain the condition of a system. We perform preventive maintenance (PM) to preserve this condition. If PM funding is inadequate, the system’s condition will suffer; hence, there is a positive relationship (denoted by the ‘+’ sign in the diagram) between effective PM funding and system condition. Certainly there are other factors and in fact too much PM can be a bad thing as well; but in general terms this is a reasonable relationship. The poorer the system’s condition, the more failures will occur. A certain small percentage of these failures may produce serious incidents. Of course, failures must be repaired, so an increase in failures will drive up Corrective Maintenance (CM) costs; but this will produce a negative pressure on PM funding, since there will be fewer maintenance dollars available for PM. Note that there is a delay between PM funding and the resultant rise or drop in system condition; more on this in a moment. This model is a vicious cycle, reinforcing itself on a downward spiral. If this is the case, then why hasn’t “the sky fallen” at the AFA? The model is not complete; there is a correcting, or restoring, force that acts as a thermostat. There comes a point when system condition is so deteriorated, or when equipment failures are so frequent, that everyone agrees the system must be overhauled or replaced, creating a step change in the system’s condition. Does this correction occur at the optimal time, however? Specific Degradation problems Incidents - Condition Failures + + PM CM costs funding - -6 3/9/2014 DRAFT Appendix F: Maintenance Metrics 1. Facilities Maintenance Management Metrics This appendix provides maintenance management metrics. The CHAS maintenance management uses these metrics as applicable, as a means of measuring performance. 1.1 Facility Condition The annual maintenance funding and resultant trends are a function of the BMAR and the needs of the AFA. If the BMAR is high and increasing or staying the same, a positive trend would be observed. A downward trend would be expected if the backlog is low or decreasing. An elimination of the BMAR is not always possible or desirable since BMAR can provide an ability to balance resources in the long term. The following represent the applicable metrics and corresponding benchmarks: a. Annual Maintenance Funding ($) should be between 2% - 4%. Current Replacement Value ($) b. Annual Maintenance Funding ($) should show a downward or stabilized trend. Current Replacement Value ($) 1.2. Work Performance. The following metrics and corresponding benchmarks are used to trend work performance: a. Emergency Trouble Call Response (hours) should show a downward trend. b. Emergency Trouble Call Completion (hours) should show a downward trend. c. Average Completion Time for Routine Trouble Calls (hours) should show a downward trend. d. Average Completion Time for Repairs (days) should show a downward trend. e. Jobs Completed as Scheduled (Number) should be 100%. Total Jobs Scheduled (Number) f. Service Requests Completed (Number) should be 100%. Service Requests Committed (Number) 1.3. Work Element 1.3.1. The following metric may have a positive trend if repair rates are high, equipment/ facilities systems are not realizing their full useful life, and/or there is very little PT&I usage. A negative trend should develop if PT&I is increasing and repair rates are stable or decreasing. The benchmark is between 15% - 18%: -7 3/9/2014 DRAFT Preventive Maintenance ($) Total Maintenance Cost ($) 1.3.2. The following metric should develop a positive trend as the maintenance program shifts from reactive and time-based maintenance to condition-based maintenance. The benchmark is between 10% - 12%: Predictive Testing & Inspection ($) Total Maintenance Cost ($) 1.3.3. The following metrics should develop a negative trend as the maintenance program shifts from reactive and time-based maintenance to condition-based maintenance: a. Programmed Maintenance ($) should be 25% - 30%. Total Maintenance Cost ($) b. Repair ($) should be 15% - 20%. Total Maintenance Cost ($) c. Trouble Calls ($) should be 5% - 10%. Total Maintenance Cost ($) 1.3.4. The following metric should show an upward trend if a backlog of this type of work exists, and a negative trend if not much of this type work exists at the AFA. The benchmark is between 15% - 20%: Replacement of Obsolete Items ($) Total Maintenance Cost ($) 1.3.5. The following metric should show a negative trend demonstrating increased focus on maintenance, and should be distinguished from customer reimbursed Service Requests. The benchmark is between 0% - 5%: Service Requests ($) Total Maintenance Cost ($) 1.4. RCM Performance Metrics. RCM analysis is an excellent indicator of performance. 1.4.1. Equipment Availability. The following metric is an indicator of equipment availability. The benchmark is 96%: Hours Each Unit of Equipment is Available to Run at Capacity Total Hours During the Reporting Time Period 1.4.2. Maintenance Overtime Percentage. The following metric is an indicator of maintenance overtime percentage. The benchmark is 5% or less: -8 3/9/2014 DRAFT Total Maintenance Overtime Hours During the Period Total Regular Maintenance Hours During the Period 1.4.3. Emergency Percentage. The following metric is an indicator of the level of effort dedicated to emergency work. The benchmark is 10% or less: Total Hours Worked on Emergency Jobs Total Hours Worked 1.4.4. Percent of Candidate Equipment Covered by PT&I. The following metric is an indicator of the amount of candidate equipment covered by PT&I. The benchmark is 100%: Number of Equipment Items in the PT&I Program Total Equipment Candidates for PT&I 1.4.5. Percent of Emergency Work to PT&I and PM Work. The following metric is an indicator of the amount of emergency work relative to PT&I and PM work. The benchmark is 20% or less: Total Emergency Hours Total PT&I and PM Hours 1.4.6. Percent of Faults Found in Thermographic Survey. The following metric is an indicator of the percent of faults found through infrared thermography. The benchmark is 3% or less: Number of Faults Found Number of Devices Surveyed 1.4.7. Percent of Faults Found in Steam Trap Survey. The following metric is an indicator of the percent of faults found during steam trap surveys. The benchmark is 10% or less: Number of Defective Steam Traps Found Number of Steam Traps Surveyed 1.4.8. Ratio of PM/PT&I Work to Reactive Maintenance Work. The following metric is an indicator of the percentage of planned work relative to unplanned work: A = 85% PM/PT&I B = 15% Reactive Maintenance where, A%= Manhours of PM/PT & I Work Manhours of Reactive + PM/PT & I Work -9 3/9/2014 DRAFT B%= Manhours of Reactive Work Manhours of Reactive + PM/PT & I Work A% + B% = 100% 2. Budget Execution The following metrics indicate how well the facilities maintenance budget is being executed: a. Prior Year Execution ($) should be 100%. Prior Year Budget ($) b. Current Year Expenditures to Date ($) should be 100%. Current Year Budget to Date ($) 2.3. Other Metrics The following are miscellaneous metrics used by organizations to measure performance. Their use by Centers is highly encouraged: a. New Construction + Service Requests or New Work ($ or hours) PM + PT&I + PGM + Repairs + ROI Maintenance ($ or hours) should show a downward trend. b. Repairs + Trouble Calls or Corrective Actions ($) PM + PT&I + PGM + ROI Preventive Actions should show a downward trend. c. Maintenance Backlog (BMAR) ($) should be less than 5% CRV ($) d. Average Age of Equipment (years) should show a downward trend. Average Useful life of Equipment (years) e. The number of disabling accidents per year should show a downward trend. f. The number of routine trouble calls per year should show a downward trend. g. The number of Work Orders per year or month should show a downward trend. h. The number of emergency trouble calls per year or month should show a downward trend. i. Customer Satisfaction, as measured by a numerical grade assigned to positive or negative feedback should show a positive, or upward, trend. j. The number of unplanned electric power outages should show a downward trend. -10 3/9/2014 DRAFT k. The number of environmental violations should be zero. l. The number of OSHA violations should be zero. m. Maintenance Overtime (hours) should be less than 10% of payroll costs. Total Maintenance (hours) n. PM's Completed (number) should show an upward trend. PM's Scheduled (number) o. Scheduled Work (hours) should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. Total Work (hours) p. Actual Cost of Work ($) should be ± 5%. Estimated Cost of Work ($) q. Jobs Planned and Estimated (number) should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. Total Jobs (number) r. Jobs Planned and Estimated ($) should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. Total Jobs ($) s. Requisitions Met from Stock (number) should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. Total Requisitions (number) t. Requisitions not in stock (number) should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. (5%) Total Requisitions (number) u. Supervision (hours) should be less than 10%. Direct Labor (hours) v. Downtime Caused by Breakdown (hours) should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. Total Downtime (hours) w. Breakdown Labor (hours) should show a downward trend. Total Labor (hours) x. Maintenance Cost ($) should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. Center Mission Cost ($) 3.1. The following two metrics must be carefully used and on a job-by-job or like-work basis. This may create conflict between shops and management. Care should be exercised to preclude adversarial relationships between the shops and management. a. Actual Hours per Job (hours) should be ± 10%. Scheduled Hours per Job (hours) -11 3/9/2014 DRAFT b. Maintenance Work Orders Completed (number) should show an upward trend. Maintenance Work Planned & Scheduled (number) 3.2. The following two metrics should be trended with the locally accepted employment index factor: a. Material Cost ($) should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. Direct Labor Cost ($) b. Maintenance Cost ($) should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. Total Maintenance Workhours (hours) 3.3. Metric 3.2.b., when evaluated with metric 3.3.a. below, will help determine peaks of work resulting from the Center mission or weather related work. This evaluation can help in the planning process and use of alternative labor or contract methods. a. The monthly cost of maintenance operations should not exceed a locally determined benchmark. b. Equipment Covered by PT&I (number) should show an upward trend. Items of Equipment Potential for PT&I (number) 3.4. A downward trend of the spare parts inventory is desirable provided that the maintenance response time and completion times are not adversely affected. Given that, the desired metric is the following: a. The inventory value of spare parts should show a downward trend. -12
"Master Maintenance P"