Preventive Maintenance

Preventive Maintenance (PM) Program Overview

• A proactive maintenance approach following asset management principles is crucial for infrastructure life cycle sustainment.
• Implementing a PM program is key to this approach.
• A well-implemented PM program is vital for sustaining equipment, systems, and infrastructure in resource-limited environments.
• It also provides a high level of preemptive service to the installation’s mission and customers.
• The PM Playbook offers standardized guidance for CE Operations Flights in PM program development and management.
• The Playbook aims to guide in establishing a sustainable PM program by defining organizational roles and responsibilities in program management and execution.
• This includes determining PM investments, developing balanced schedules, ensuring data quality, managing scheduled PM execution, measuring program effectiveness and completion of PM activities, and conducting periodic reviews for continuous improvement.
• The guidance is intended to ensure continual process improvement of the established PM program.

Process Overview

• Begins with executable PM investment requirements and an asset inventory.
• Resource capacity is factored in to execute and balance/optimize schedules.
• Quality documented requirements in IT tools are a must, along with materiel procurement.
• Determining an asset's level of PM investment is crucial.
• Involves executing, managing, reviewing, and measuring the PM program.

Intended Use of the PM Playbook

• The PM Playbook is not a step-by-step guide for incorporating PM into Air Force (AF) Information Technology (IT) tools.
• Business processes for NexGen IT implementation are available via the Air Force Civil Engineer Center's (AFCEC) Operations Maintenance Branch (AFCEC/COOM) PM Business Process Library (BPL).
• Contact the AFCEC/COOM PM Program Manager for other IT platforms like legacy IT platforms.

Supporting Publications

• The PM Playbook supports and expands on existing policies and documents.
• It aims to standardize CE business processes and provide organizational guidance for sustainable PM programs.
• Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-1001, Civil Engineer Operations, references playbooks for standardized processes and resources.

Supporting Documents:

• Executive Order (EO) 13327, Federal Real Property Asset Management (2004): Requires DoD components to adopt a common process for Facility Condition Assessment (FCA) and record a Facility Condition Index (FCI) for all Real Property (RP).
• DoD Memorandum, Standardizing Facility Condition Assessments (2013): Mandates DoD components to use Sustainment Management System (SMS) modules developed by USACE, ERDC, and CERL, and to record a Condition Index (CI) for each asset.
• Program Action Directive 12-03, Civil Engineer Transformation: Outlines the implementation of a multi-pronged asset management structure. Civil Engineer (CE) Annex: Informs decision-making for CE leaders and preserves the foundation of the engineering enterprise.
• Infrastructure Investment Strategy (I2S): Guides infrastructure requirements and investments to, modernize infrastructure, and drive innovation.
• Air Force Doctrine Publication (AFDP) 3-34, Engineer Operations: Defines core capabilities for the CE Enterprise.
• Air Force Policy Doctrine (AFPD) 32-90, Real Property Asset Management: Establishes policy related to DAF RP asset management.
• AFPD 32-10, Installations and Facilities: Policy relating to DAF Installations and Facilities.
• AFI 32-1001, Civil Engineer Operations: Implements AFPD 32-10 and provides requirements for operation management and PM, and the use of Playbooks.

Work Prioritization

• According to AFI 32-1001, PM activities are work priority code 2A, making it the number one scheduled work activity after emergency work.
• 2A PM activities are prioritized ahead of sustainment (priority 3A, 3B, 3C) and enhancement work (priority 4A, 4B).
• Operations Flights need to execute 95% of scheduled 2A PM requirements.

PM Definition

• PM involves planned, recurring maintenance actions to reduce system or component failure.
• The primary goal is to sustain asset performance over its operational lifespan.
• Effective PM extends asset life, reduces major repairs or replacements, and minimizes unplanned downtime.
• PM is executed and tracked under work priority code 2A.
• To qualify as 2A PM, the work activity's scope must be known, including the specific asset, resources, duration, and reoccurrence pattern.
• The work activity must involve RP or Real Property Installed Equipment (RPIE).
• Equipment Authorized Inventory Data (EAID) can be included if it directly supports RP, RPIE, and/or key mission capability, with approval from the local Operations Engineering Element Chief.
• The asset needs a published Preventive Maintenance Task List (PMTL).

Recurring Work That Is Not PM:

• Snow Removal Operations, Joint / Crack Repair, Spall Repair, Sealant Application, Airfield and Street Sweeping Operations, Replacement of sweeper brooms, Grounds Maintenance, Shop Cleanup, Maintenance of Shop Tools, Plant Operations, Meter Reading.
• Snow Removal: Cannot determine the exact scope of resources, duration, and frequency, classified as 3A, B, C sustainment work.
• Joint/Crack Repair, Spall Repair, Sealant Application: Cannot determine the specific asset, exact scope of resources, duration, and frequency, also classified as 3A, B, C sustainment work, noting that inspection of paved surfaces to identify defects is part of the PM program.
• Airfield/Street Sweeping: Cannot determine the exact scope of resources, duration, and frequency and is classified as 3A, B, C sustainment work.
• Sweeper Broom Replacement: Not work against RP or RPIE and uses a pseudo location, classified as 3C sustainment work.
• Grounds Maintenance (e.g., grass cutting): Cannot determine the exact scope of resources, duration, and frequency, also classified as 3A, B, C sustainment work
• Shop Cleanup: Not direct work against sustainment of RP or RPIE, an indirect work activity.
• Shop Tool Maintenance: Not direct work against sustainment of RP or RPIE, sustainment work activity through a pseudo location, classified as 3A, B, C sustainment work
• Plant Operations: Operation of a plant is not PM. Activities related to operating the plant are classified as 2A plant operations (2A Plant Ops).
• Meter Reading: Utility cost collection activity and not a sustainment action, an indirect work activity.

Organizational Responsibilities

• AFI 32-1001 provides the overarching policy for the Operations Flight’s PM program.
• It covers roles, responsibilities, organization structure, data collection quality, work priorities, the standardized PM program, and asset management.
• CE Organizations with contracted Operations Flights may have different organizational structures but the playbook's principles still apply.
• The Operations Engineering element (CEOE), specifically the Requirements and Optimization section (CEOER), is responsible for operating, maintaining, and repairing DAF RP and RPIE using asset management principles.
• AMP managers and Sub-Activity Managers (SAM) within CEOER are responsible for PM program development, management, oversight, optimization, and measurement.
• Workgroup (shop) foremen are responsible for executing the work activities.
• Principles, concepts, and methods are applicable regardless if the flight is government or contractor operated.

Key Roles and Responsibilities:

• CEOER: Manages asset inventory and condition assessments, determines PM investments based on mission dependency, risk, ROI, warranty requirements, and resource capacity
• CEOER continues: Collaborates with workgroup foremen, manages PM program records, applies standardized business processes, and adjusts inventory records.
• CEOER Develops and maintains a balanced PM program with input from workgroup foreman, PM program documented within DAF IT system.
• CEOER also manages, reviews, and adjusts the PM program annually.
• Workgroup (Shop) Foreman Receives 2A PM WT and Ensures PM materiel are available along with executing assigned 2A PM WT.
• Foreman: Assigns resources, ensures proper materiel issuance and cost association, records labor hours, and enters detailed comments when needed, as well as requests corrective maintenance work tasks (WT).
• CEOER closes out 2A PM WT alongside reviewing completed work activities and ensure data standards
• CEOER Implements continuous process improvement and oversees the management of the PM program
• CEOER: Manages and executes inventory and condition assessments on RP, RPIE, and EAID (under CES control that directly supports RP or RPIE). Maintains inventories and condition assessments in the respective SMS according to SMS business rules.
• CEOER: Uses compulsory requirements Department of Defense Directives (DoDD), Department of Defense Instructions (DoDI), Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC), AFI, local laws, etc.) to guide PM requirements against established inventory.
• CEOER: Makes PM investment determinations based on asset management principles, evaluating mission dependency, PoF, CoF, ROI, cost effectiveness, warranty requirements, and resource capacity.
• CEOER: Applies standardized business processes towards PM requirements to ensure consistent data quality standards, PM program oversight, and PM program management.
• CEOER: Reviews and adjusts inventory to properly account for removals or additions of RP / RPIE in both the respective SMS and the DAF mandated IT system for work management, according to established business processes.
• CEOER: Collaborates with shop Foreman to determine proper trade craft to accomplish the PM activity. Collaborates with the local financial management team to determine if the PM activity is reimbursable by a customer and ensures the proper customer is aligned to the PM activity.
• CEOER: Ensures obsolete RP or RPIE is removed from the PM program and adjusts the PM program to include newly installed RP or RPIE with a PM requirement. Incorporates existing RP or RPIE not previously in the PM program but now determined to have a PM requirement.
• Foreman: Collaborates with the Chief of Materiel Control to ensure PM materiel are stocked and available.
• Foreman: Informs CEOER when an asset is decommissioned, replaced, or newly installed, and notifies CEOER of reduced maintenance parts availability on aging assets for forecasting and programming replacement actions.
• CEOER: Reviews completed work activities documented on 2A PM WT. Adjudicates comments entered by the shop and takes appropriate action. Closes 2A PM WT following adjudication.
• CEOER: Implements continuous process improvement practices; ensures systematic annual review of the PM program is accomplished and documented. Informs Operations Flight leadership of PM Program metrics using AFCEC/COOM standardized data reports tool, such as the PM Dashboard and reviews the quality of the data within the PM program; Monitors the PM completion rate of the Operations Flight.

Determining PM Requirements

• Determining an asset’s PM requirement involves establishing a comprehensive inventory.
• The level of PM investment depends on policy, mission criticality, cost effectiveness, condition, warranties, and resource availability.
• Influencing factors during investment determination processes are policy driven maintenance requirements, the asset’s criticality to the mission, cost effectiveness, condition, warranties, other maintenance and performance considerations, and the availability of resources to execute determined requirements.
• Adjudication process leads to the development of the PM execution requirements.

PM Determination Process Overview

• Policy Driven Maintenance Requirements lead to applying the Standard Level of PM Investment
• Comprehensive Asset Inventory will have its Level of PM Investment Determined alongside factors such as Mission Criticality, Return on Investment, Asset Condition, Warranties etc.
• Resource availability such as man-hours must be evaluated, followed by estimating man-hours.
• Align Investment Determinations to Balanced Schedules.
• Investment determinations are documented, then prioritized.

Inventory and Condition of Assets

• Documenting the inventory and recording its condition is done through Sustainment Management Systems (SMS) suites and GeoBase.
• These IT tools provide baseline data for developing and implementing a sustainable PM program provided by the AFCEC Asset Management Division (AFCEC/COA).
• An intentional review of the inventory is needed to determine proper investment of resources towards PM.
• Investment determination outcomes must be recorded.
• Knowing components, systems, and infrastructure is present on an installation, including physical locations and known quantities with units of measure, is central to setting up an effective PM program.
• Comprehensive inventories and condition assessments collected in these IT tools guide the development and implementation of a sustainable PM program.
• Resources to guide CEOER in inventory and condition data collection processes can be attained on AFCEC/COA’s CE DASH workspace.

Determining an Asset’s PM Investment

• Optimizing Operations Flight’s resource investments towards PM activities produces execution requirements for the PM program.
• The PM investment determination process aims to take the unconstrained asset inventory and develop an executable portfolio of PM requirements to sustain assets, support the mission, and have an effective ROI.
• With the PM investment opportunities identified, align and prioritize them against the Operations Flight’s capacity to establish an executable portfolio of PM requirements.
• Factoring is key, by covering policy driven maintenance requirements, criticality of how the asset supports the mission, ROI and cost effectiveness of the PM investment, the condition of the asset and its expected life cycle, impacts of warranties that are tied to the asset, Resource availability to execute PM investment requirements.
• The objective of the PM investment determination process is to take the unconstrained asset inventory and develop an executable portfolio of PM requirements to sustain assets, support the mission, and yield an effective ROI.
• PM investment can vary from simple and straight forward to complex and detailed, but the core foundation of making the determination involves applying the appropriate level of PM by factoring policy driven maintenance requirements, the asset’s criticality to the mission, ROI and cost effectiveness of the PM investment, the condition of the asset and its expected life cycle, impacts of warranties that are tied to the asset, resource availability to execute PM investment requirements.
• The process will also allow for appropriate reductions from standard levels of PM to produce an optimal ROI, when not conflicting with policy driven maintenance requirements.

Levels of PM Investment

• There are four levels of PM investment: Standard, Reduced, Minimal, and No PM (Run to Failure (RTF) or Corrective Maintenance Only).
• Each level has an intent, risk, and cost that needs to be considered.
• AFI 32-1001 allows deviations from standard PM frequencies when there is not a conflict with policy-driven requirements, optimizing resource investment.
• Each asset inventory aligns to one of these four levels of PM, dependent on policy driven maintenance requirements, the criticality of the asset to the mission, the cost effectiveness of performing PM actions, condition of the asset, warranty influences.
• The four levels of PM investment applied are Standard, Reduced, Minimal, and No PM (RTF or CM Only).
• AFI 32-1001 allows for deviations from standard PM frequencies provided in the applicable PMTL when not conflicting with policy driven requirements.

PM Investment Levels

• Standard*
• Provides maintenance needed to sustain assets throughout their life cycle, supporting mission-essential functions.
• Supports all policy driven maintenance mandates.
• Requires the largest resource investment.
• Introduces the least amount of risk and optimizes the life cycle of assets.
• Does not reduce PM frequencies and applies all applicable steps within the standardized PMTL.
• Reduced* (non-applicable to policy driven mandates)
• Represents a reduction in PM activity compared to the standard level, allowing a frequency shift by an order of one to the right.
• When there is only an Annual PM frequency, reduction is not permitted.
• PM determination process must justify the reduction.
• It's a mid-level of risk acceptance to the asset and the mission, but may be necessary based on resource constraints (funding, labor, materiel, equipment) to produce an optimal ROI.
• An intermediate/interim step with goals to restore PM activities to Standard levels as soon as possible
• Minimal* (non-applicable to policy driven mandates)
• The lowest level of PM as compared to standard level of PM.
• It is only annual occurrence.
• PM determination process must justify the reduction is required.
• Serves as a short-term/temporary step with goals to restore PM activities to Reduced or Standard levels as soon as possible
• Carries a higher level of risk acceptance but may be necessary based on resource constraints factors.
• No PM* (non-applicable to policy driven mandates)
• Establishing PM against an asset does not always benefit the asset or the mission.
• Opting for no PM carries a high level of risk acceptance to the asset and the mission.
• Actions will be maintained appropriately CM actions to support the mission
• PM determination process must justify the absence.
• Standard levels of PM provide the desired maintenance required and support all policy driven maintenance mandates, requiring the largest resource investment but introducing the least amount of risk through applying all applicable steps within the standardized PMTL.
• Reduced (non-applicable to policy driven mandates) levels of PM represents a reduction in the amount of PM activity (frequency shifted by an order of one to the right), a mid-level of risk acceptance, serving as intermediate/interim step, justifying the reduction in the PM determination process.
• Minimal (non-applicable to policy driven mandates) is the lowest level of PM as compared to standard, allowing for only the annual occurrence to be accomplished when there are additional recommended frequencies, carrying a higher level of risk acceptance, serving as a short-term/temporary step, justifying reduction in the process.
• No PM, also known as RTF or CM only (non-applicable to policy driven mandates), can potentially carry a high level of risk acceptance when applied incorrectly, but it must be justified in the PM determination process.

Policy Driven Mandates

• Directives mandate recurring maintenance and inspection actions, like PM.
• Non-execution requires a waiver from the appropriate authority to assume the risk.
• Inventory that has compulsory requirements must be included in the Operations Flight’s PM program.
• Examples of this Inventory are Fire Suppression and Detection Systems, Backflow Prevention Devices, Emergency Generators, Life Safety Systems, etc.
• These assets within the inventory that align to policy driven maintenance mandates require the standard level of PM.
• CEOER must maintain a copy of the approved waiver and follow the waiver authority’s directions.
• Policy driven requirements (DoDD, DoDI, UFC, Department of Air Force Instruction (DAFI), DAFMAN, National Codes, Local Code Requirements, etc.) direct recurring maintenance and inspection actions.
• Non-execution of maintenance and inspections actions required by policy driven mandates necessitates the need for a waiver from the appropriate waiver authority to assume the risk.

Assets without Policy Driven Maintenance Requirements

• In the absence of compulsory requirements, risk-based decision making and asset management principles are applied to determine which level of PM investment is most appropriate.
• This PM investment should also factor criticality of how the asset support the mission, ROI and cost effectiveness of the PM.
• Also to factor condition of the asset and its expected life cycle, Impacts of warranties that are tied to the asset, Resource availability to execute PM investment requirements.
• PM actions not mandated allow for applying a level of PM investment by factoring criticality of how the asset supports the mission, ROI and cost effectiveness of the PM, The condition of the asset and its expected life cycle, Impacts of warranties that are tied to the asset, Resource availability to execute PM investment requirements.

Mission’s Dependency on an Asset

• The mission’s dependency on an asset should not be confused with Mission Dependency Index (MDI), the Tactical-Mission Dependency Index (T-MDI), or Utility Dependency Index (UDI) of the infrastructure.
• Gauging the importance and purpose the asset has towards the success of the mission is very important.
• CEOER will need to have a good understanding of what the asset supports, its condition, redundancies in place, and the mission impact if the asset fails to operate as designed when conducting any assessment on the mission’s dependency.
• Data attribute that can help CEOER gain an understanding of the mission’s importance are the dependency indexes.
• 3 Dependency Indexes 1. Category Code (CATCODE) based MDI 2. T-MDI 3. UDI Each asset is represented on numerical scale of 1-100 from dependency indexes.
• CATCODE uses its the facility or infrastructure’s intra-dependency (within its own mission set), its inter-dependency (need for other mission sets), and number of external mission sets, reliant upon the infrastructure
• T-MDI Is a risk-based metric that links facilities and assets to the mission to associate risk to mission decision making.
• UDI Is for operations and maintenance personnel, and investment decision makers, a steady-state understanding of the mission dependence and priority for each utility segment.
• Caution must be taken when using dependency indexes as a factor, to ensure the index is accurate.
• Gauging the importance and purpose the asset has towards support and success of the mission is part of the process.
• CEOER will need to have a good understanding of what the asset supports, its condition, redundancies in place, and the mission impact if the asset fails to operate as designed.
• Dependency indexes represent the CoF, not the PoF and are represented on a numerical scale from 1-100.
• Category Code (CATCODE) based MDI factors infrastructure’s intra-dependency, its inter-dependency, and number of external mission sets, reliant upon the infrastructure. The MDI is fixed against the CATCODE and cannot be adjusted locally.
• Tactical-Mission Dependency Index (T-MDI) is a risk-based metric that links facilities and assets to the mission to associate risk to mission decision making. The T-MDI methodology gauges how the higher-level mission would be negatively impacted if the mission enabling asset were interrupted due to an asset failure. The T-MDI codified adjudication process is primarily conducted at the installation level through the Facilities Board and coordinated through the Air Force Installation Mission Support Center (AFIMSC).
• Utility Dependency Index (UDI) is intended to provide operations and maintenance personnel and investment decision makers with a steady-state understanding of the mission dependence and priority for each utility segment and is normally contained within GeoBase. The default UDI will be assigned the Mission Dependency Index (MDI) of the associated utility system CATCODE’s MDI.

Return on Investment and Cost Effectiveness

• Conducting PM actions comes at a resource’s investment cost (funding, manpower, materiel, and equipment).
• ROI needs to be factored.
• Cost evaluation doesn't exclude from the PM program without a policy waiver.
• Consider the present replacement cost of the asset, future replacement cost, degraded service life resulting from less proactive maintenance and the cost of increased emergency work and CM actions Evaluation involves the Initial Baseline Cost Factors for the Remaining Estimated.
• Service Life and Evaluate Cost Factors Deviating from Standard Levels of PM.
• ROI needs to be factored in conjunction with the other key PM investment determination factors.
• Cost evaluation of the PM activities against an asset cannot be used to exclude the asset from the PM program or reduce PM investment against codified PM requirements without a policy waiver.

Condition of the Asset and Its Life Expectancy

• The asset’s condition and expected remaining service life can key in determining the proper level PM investment.
• SMS tools can help to provide the assessed condition of an asset and the remaining service life.
• Asset condition and life expectancy can be factored when they mandate PM actions or reduces PM investments with permission of waiver.
• Programmed for replacement if condition reaches a point of corrective maintenance is not improving conditions.
• SMS tools can help to provide the assessed condition of an asset and the remaining service life
• Asset condition and life expectancy cannot be used to exclude the asset from the PM program or reduce PM investments against codified requirements without a policy waiver.

Warranties

• Impacts the level of PM investment
• CEOER must factor the value of the warranty in relationship to the asset’s value, cost of the warranty’s maintenance requirements, and administrative cost of documenting warranty records.
• Cost of maintaining warranty can exceed the value of the asset and any cost benefit of the warranty which deems PM not cost effective.
• AFI 32-1001 requires management of warranties.
• CEOER must factor the value of the warranty in relationship to the asset’s value, cost of the warranty’s maintenance requirements, and document the determination regarding the preservation of the warranty for a particular asset as AFI 32-1001 requires the management of warrantees.

Additional Methods for Determining PM Investment

• Subjective elimination
• Used against assets that typically have a low impact on the mission and/or low replacement cost,
• Used on low historical maintenance requirements.
• Evaluate Asset Performance like Effectiveness, Efficiency, MTBF and MTTR.
• The subjective elimination method is utilized against assets with a low impact on the mission, low replacement cost, and low historical maintenance requirements, and for assets with no policy driven maintenance requirement or high impact to the mission.
• When determining an asset’s performance, data collection is normally required over a period of time, and then analytical comparison of the collected data against validated baseline performance specification from the manufacturer

Applying Estimated Labor-hours to PM Investment Determinations

• PMTLs are a planning and estimation tool.
• Each asset is aligned to the most applicable PMTL.
• The frequencies of occurrence applied is based on the level that is determined for the asset.
• Labour is then applied and the estimated labour also may require adjustments.
• Estimated hours aligned to the asset is influenced due the Level that is applied.
• Standard Level Apply all applicable frequencies and estimated labor-hours.
• Reduced Level Shift the frequency occurrence one order to the right and apply the remaining applicable frequencies and estimated labor-hours.
• Minimal Level: Apply the annual frequency and estimated labor-hours.
• No PM Level: Do not apply frequencies or the estimated labor-hours.
• Annualized labor-hours for each asset are presented in example table to show PM Investment and applicable frequencies
• The frequencies of occurrence within the aligned PMTL are applied based on the level of PM investment determined for the asset.
• Estimated labor-hours aligned to the asset may need require adjustments, based upon its level:
• Standard Level: Apply all applicable frequencies and estimated labor-hours.
• Reduced Level: Shift the frequency occurrence one order to the right and apply the remaining applicable frequencies and estimated labor-hours.
• Minimal Level: Apply the annual frequency and estimated labor-hours.
• No PM Level: Do not apply frequencies or the estimated labor-hours.

Determining Resource Availability for PM Investments

• Examination of a workgroup’s labor-hours availability needs to be determined as a part of the overall PM investment determination process to define a workgroup’s capacity to execute work requirements.
• Consider Direct vs. Indirect available labour.
• Each workgroup must be reviewed to see how they may impact the overall labour hours.
• Labour percentage is determined against priority work to also determine annual spending on labour and the remaining PM time to labour.
• Prioritizing the delta impacts, in terms of the PM requirements.
• Examination and factoring of a workgroup’s available labor-hours, factoring its resources availability to perform direct work activities against RP and RPIE within their respective workgroup is important.
• Workgroup’s direct man-hour availability can be found on the AFCEC/COOM BPL page for scheduling work. Factoring Direct Available Labor-Hours for PM Activities:
• PM investment determinations reveal a workgroup’s unconstrained PM program requires about 45,000 labor-hours annually to execute in full.
• The available human capital in the work center is 20 craftsmen at 40 hours per week over 50 weeks is conducted and provides a baseline of 40,000 labor-hours, but does not delineate between direct vs. indirect hours.
• If evaluation of the workgroup determines on average 60% of labor-hours are available for direct work, then this equates to approximately 24,000 direct labor-hours are available annually to execute work.
• The available direct labor-hours must be used to execute priority 1 emergency work, priority 2A PM activities, priority 2A Plant Ops (in some cases), priority 2B contingency training projects, priority 3 sustainment and CM, along with some limited priority 4 enhancement work.

Reserving Labor-hours for PM Investments

• Fundamental for direct labour.
• It is an investment for proactive resource scheduling practices and sustainment.
• There is no exact policy due to the fact that there is flexibility of the installation’s asset portfolio and the criticality of the asset supporting the mission.
• The intentional set aside of labor-hours must occur to enable the execution of PM investment determinations.
• There is not a policy mandating the percentage of a workgroups available labor-hours are to be reserved for PM activities due to the variability of each installation’s asset portfolio and criticality of the asset’s supporting the mission. As the PM investment determinations are established against the asset inventory and resource availability is factored, then the percentage of available direct labor-hours to be set aside can be realized.

PM Execution Teams

• Manpower should be rotated in and out of PM Teams to make sure craftsmen are proficient in their work.
• Operations Flights and workgroups that effectively execute PM investment determinations, not only reserve an appropriate percentage of their available labor-hours for PM activities, they also dedicate teams of craftsmen to execute PM requirements.

Prioritizing the PM Investment Determinations for Execution

• PM actions that are executable within the available direct labor-hours, also listing all available direct hours.
• Investment Prioritization in the following order

1. Assets with policy driven requirements.
2. Assets determined to be critical to the mission, regardless of level of PM
3. Assets with standard level of PM investment until available labor-hours have been expended.
4. Assets with reduced level of PM investment until available labor-hours have been expended.
5. ssets with minimal level of PM investment until available labor-hours have been expended.

• Prioritize the investment determinations against available labor-hours:

1. Assets with policy driven requirements.
2. Assets determined to be critical to the mission, regardless of level of PM determined.
3. Assets with standard level of PM investment until available labor-hours have been expended.
4. Assets with reduced level of PM investment until available labor-hours have been expended.
5. Assets with minimal level of PM investment until available labor-hours have been expended.

Service Contracted PM

• Many factors to consider.
• The program manager for Service Contracts maintains a list of resources on the AFCEC/COOM Service Contracts BPL that can help guide the Operations Flight through the consideration factors, statement of work development, and contracting process.

Documentation of the PM Investment Determinations

• Records of the PM programs life cycle are vital to the lifecycle CEOER records listing of comprehensive assessment investment.
• Determinations along PM.
• CEOER must maintain a list of the comprehensive asset inventory listing used during each PM investment determination process that indicates the determined level of PM investment, the estimated labor-hours to accomplish the determined level, and the evaluation of the workgroups available labor-hours to accomplish PM actions. All waivers that allow for deviation from policy driven maintenance requirements must be maintained on file for the life of the asset, or longer if DoD, DAF (USAF and USSF) record management disposition policies require longer retention timelines.
• The AFCEC/COOM PM BPL page on PM Determination provides PM investment determination tools that will assist CEOER in capturing the comprehensive inventory listing, along with the determination processes outlined in this playbook.

PM Records in the Approved IT System

• CMMS main objective is to assist Maintenance operations by centralizing work requirements, proper trade route, record costs and other information.
• Must maintain consistent data quality.
• AFI 32-1001 mandates policy, drives data need to establish consistency, and be able to centralize data to be maintained.
• Proper procedures for data entries and maintenance steps are needed.
• One of the CMMS’s main purposes is to facilitate maintenance operations by centralizing work requirements, routing work to the proper trade craft, recording labor cost, capturing materiel procured and their cost, recording of maintenance history notes, along with any other relevant information.
• Establishment of the PM program driven by policy within AFI 32-1001, PM records in the IT system with attention to consistent data quality must be maintained.

Consistent Data Quality

• In order for Program Management to work effectively quality and consistency of the data is needed for easy flow and operations.
• Important to use standard procedures for consistent data.
• The data entry is correctly following business processes
• Consistent data quality will help to feed data driven decision making processes.
• AFI 32-1001 requires Operations Flight to employ standardized business to ensure consistent data quality in order to support data driven decisions and analytics
• Applying naming conventions, Entry of specific data in specific fields in the IT system, Establishing IT records using a particular format, Reviewing a complex situation and applying the correct business process relevant to the situation are various Standard business process topics .

Establishing PM Records In The Approved IT System

• PM data entry through business processes must ensure records of assets.
• When establishing PM records,Records representing the asset: -Have clear/meaningful names & descriptions, Data attributes aligning with physical asset Accurate location information
• Records used to establish the Schedule of PM activities: -Have Clear/meaningful names & descriptions, Proper dates and frequency patterns established, and PM scheduling records referencing the applicable PMTL for the PM activities.
• 2A PM WT records: -Contain accurate work location information, Reference the record, -Designate the workgroup that is assigned the PM activity, Specify applicable PMTL -Have reference to the customer for which the PM activity is supporting, indicate the scheduled date for the PM activity
• PM requirements entered into the approved IT must be and Assigned/routed to the tradecraft responsible for execution, Associated to the actual RP location, Aligned to the proper customer, Associated to a PMTL and have the estimated labor-hours of the task presented Aligned to the asset

Presenting Estimated Work Loads for PM Activities

• Planned and scheduled work activities for PM have an estimated level of effort, and estimation displayed as the total of estimated labor-hours allocated to task, and this annotated in the approved IT Program.

PM Activity Assignment

• The estimated labor-hours are realized during the PM investment determination process and refined through the balancing and routing efforts.

Preventive Maintenance Task List (PMTL)

• PM actions and inspections against an asset or system are done through PMTL.
• Most common frequencies used.
• Facilitates Data Standardization.
• A list of common tasks for conducting PM actions and inspections against as asset or system.
• It provides most common frequencies fro executing PM, within the PMTL there are estimated listed times, those are baselined at one craftsman
• The process steps presented are the most commonly accomplished actions.
• Use of locally produced legacy maintenance action sheets (MAS) is not authorized and locally created PMTLs without AFCEC/COOM approval is not authorized in the PM program
• There are few types of authorized PMTLs their intent is to act as planning and estimating tools, guides for execution of PM actions, and to facilitate data standardization across the CE Enterprise for the purpose of PM program analytics.
• AFI 32-1001 requires the use of PMTLs within the Operations Flight’s PM program. PMTLs must be approved by AFCEC/COOM.
• Types of PMTLs: --The Air Force PMTL (AF-PMTLs) are CE Enterprise approved PM procedures that address DAF unique PM requirements that area often required by policy driven mandates (Dod, UFC, AFI, etc.). AF-PMTLs take precedence over RSMeans when there are PMTLs similar in nature. Are ce Enterprise approved with integration to the program for reasons. --RSMeans Procedures are a CE Enterprise approved commercial industry product that address common assets found supporting vertical infrastructure use when an AF-PTML is unavailable. -Base Specific or local supplement - PM procedures for use at a specific installation due to installation specific unique requirements. Requires an agreement with AFCEC/COOM when applicable The 3 types of PMTLs are: Air Force PMTLs (AF-PMTLs), Means Procedures and Base Specific/Local Supplement.
• View AF-PMTLs and approved base-specific on the AFCEC/COOM AF-PMTL Library. . RSMeans procedures are in NexGen IT or the most current version of the Facilities Maintenance and Repair Costs Book© published by Gordian®
• Regardless of approved IT system in place at an installation. All PMTL requests to create new or modify existing PMTLs must be submitted to AFCEC/COOM

PM Execution Management and Oversight

• Ensures processes of PM execution can work through analysis, scheduling, and proper documentation.
• Effective ROI can be properly planned and measured.
• Management oversight of the PM program is a constantly recurring process- ensure deliberate planning, documentation, scheduling are accomplished, , measured, and analyzed.
• The execution of the scheduled PM requirements is reviewed to identify performance challenges, scheduling shortfalls, and completion metrics as the profiles of the installation’s asset inventory portfolio changes and evolves over time- review ensure PM program is current, relevant, and effective.

Execution

• Important to be assigned weekly, not monthly.
• Scheduled hours allows for better budgeting.
• Scheduled PM requirements should be targeted for execution during the week they are scheduled, not planned for execution , Adhering to a weekly schedule and prevents non execution , allows other tasks during the schedule.
• The record produced by the IT system (most commonly referred to as a work task to be annotated in the approved IT system most be is the best , quality data that is correct -Foreman for data data and CEOER -review

Measuring PM Completion and Consistent Data Quality

• The value

Explore proactive maintenance in Civil Engineering. Learn the importance of Preventive Maintenance programs in resource-constrained environments. Understand objectives of the Preventive Maintenance Playbook and consistent data quality standards.