Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

Master Maintenance P


									   8/20/2007                                 DRAFT

                                CH2M HILL Academy Services


                               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


   Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title

            SFOC Maintenance Plan

                     REVISION LOG

   REV      CHANGE
   LTR        NO       DESCRIPTION   DATE

                                   August 20, 2007

The current status of all pages in this document is as shown below:

         Page No.                   Change No.                 Date

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.


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


        replacement projects”. This excerpt from the CHAS proposal, establishes the
        dimensions of CHAS maintenance performance. .........................................9
        4.3     Budget Shortfall ...............................................................................4-10


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



Figures                                                                                                         Page

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

3/9/2014                                  DRAFT

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.

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

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
           Base Zone
           Cadet Zone
           Base Zone
           Cadet Zone

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.

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

Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page
3/9/2014                                   DRAFT


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


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
           Increase Due
            to Unfunded
           Trouble Calls
             Total Other

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

                               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
        MEL Backbone


Use or disclosure of data contained on this sheet is subject to the restriction on the title page
3/9/2014                                   DRAFT

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
        Trouble Calls

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.

CHAS Maintenance Organization resides in:
 Engineering Services Division, responsible for providing/controlling the 5-year maintenance
 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
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


“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.    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.    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
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

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, direct scheduled and planned work backlog and status for
the current month and timeliness stipulated in PWS 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.    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.    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
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,
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
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

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).    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

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.    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    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.    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.    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. 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

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

Engineering            16
Technicians           100
Manageme                8
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. 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
             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
                                                     Verify fuel level in large containers such as fuel

                                                     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,
             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

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 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
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.

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

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
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

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

                       Base Routine Service Calls (Priority 1&2)
Year       Oct   Nov   Dec   Jan    Feb   Mar    Apr    May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep
                              Emergency Service Calls
Year       Oct   Nov   Dec   Jan    Feb   Mar    Apr    May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep
                                 Urgent Service Calls
Year       Oct   Nov   Dec   Jan    Feb   Mar    Apr    May   Jun   Jul   Aug   Sep
FY10 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.

3/9/2014                                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
 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.

3/9/2014                                 DRAFT

 Confirm/document that all work has been completed in accordance with work order
 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

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. 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.

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

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.     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
           Base Zone
           Cadet Zone
           Base Zone
           Cadet Zone
             Total     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.

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

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.    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

3/9/2014                                 DRAFT

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
              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.

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

3/9/2014                                 DRAFT


            AWP                Annual Work Plan
            BMAR               Backlog of Maintenance and Repair
            CMMS               Computerized Maintenance Management
            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.

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

       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.

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.


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.

3/9/2014                                  DRAFT


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.

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

3/9/2014                                  DRAFT


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?


                Condition                           Failures

                 PM                                 CM costs


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

d. Average Completion Time for Repairs (days) should show a downward trend.

e. Jobs Completed as Scheduled (Number) should be 100%. Total Jobs Scheduled

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%:

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

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:

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

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


A%= Manhours of PM/PT & I Work Manhours of Reactive + PM/PT & I Work

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

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

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.

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)

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

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.


To top