2016 Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook PDF

2016 Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook  Air Force C...

2016 Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction - Operations Engineering (CEOE) – Overview......................................4 1.1 How to Use This Playbook.......................................................................................................... 4 Chapter 2 Operations Flight - The BIG Picture.........................................................................5 2.1 CEOER......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Operations Flight – The Resource Realities................................................................................ 7 2.3 Managing Operations Flight Manpower.................................................................................... 8 2.4 CEOE Deliverables.................................................................................................................... 10 Chapter 3 Work Management (CEOER)................................................................................. 11 3.1 WM Basic Capability................................................................................................................. 12 3.2 WM Developing Capability....................................................................................................... 13 3.3 WM Matured Capability........................................................................................................... 14 3.4 Discussion on Elements of the Work Management Job Aid.................................................... 15 3.4.1 Section 1: Basic Capability..................................................................................................... 15 3.4.2 Section 2: Developing Capability........................................................................................... 18 3.4.3 Section 3: Mature Capability................................................................................................. 21 Chapter 4 Preventive Maintenance (PM) (CEOER)................................................................ 25 4.1 PM Basic Capability.................................................................................................................. 25 4.2 PM Developing Capability........................................................................................................ 26 4.3 PM Matured Capability............................................................................................................ 27 4.4 Elements of PM Job Aid Discussion.......................................................................................... 27 4.4.1 Section 1: Basic...................................................................................................................... 27 4.4.2 Section 2: Developing............................................................................................................ 29 4.4.3 Section 3: Mature.................................................................................................................. 30 Chapter 5 AMP and Sub-AMP.............................................................................................. 31 5.1 AMP and Sub-AMP Basic Capability......................................................................................... 32 5.2 AMP and Sub-AMP Developing Capability............................................................................... 33 5.3 AMP and Sub-AMP Matured Capability................................................................................... 34 5.4 Discussion on elements of AMP and Sub-AMP Job Aid........................................................... 34 5.4.1 Section 1: Basic...................................................................................................................... 34 5.4.2 Section 2: Developing............................................................................................................ 36 5.4.3 Section 3: Mature.................................................................................................................. 37 Chapter 6 Materiel Control.................................................................................................. 39 6.1 Materiel Control Basic Capability............................................................................................. 39 6.2 Materiel Control Developing Capability................................................................................... 40 6.3 Materiel Control Matured Capability....................................................................................... 41 6.4 Discussion on Elements of Materiel Control Job Aid............................................................... 41 6.4.1 Section 1: Basic...................................................................................................................... 41 6.4.2 Section 2: Developing............................................................................................................ 44 6.4.3 Section 3: Matured................................................................................................................ 46 Chapter 7 Service Contracts (CEOES).................................................................................... 48 7.1 Service Contracts Basic Capability............................................................................................ 48 7.2 Service Contracts Developing Capability.................................................................................. 49 7.3 Service Contracts Matured Capability...................................................................................... 49 Page | 2  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 7.4 Discussion on Elements of Service Contracts Job Aid.............................................................. 50 7.4.1 Section 1: Basic...................................................................................................................... 50 7.4.2 Section 2: Developing............................................................................................................ 52 7.4.3 Section 3: Mature.................................................................................................................. 53 Appendix Appendix A - Acronyms..................................................................................................................... 56 Appendix B - CEOER Manning........................................................................................................... 58 Appendix C - Job Aids........................................................................................................................ 58 Work Management Job Aid.......................................................................................................... 59 Preventive Maintenance Job Aid.................................................................................................. 61 AMP and Sub-AMP Job Aid........................................................................................................... 62 Materiel Control Job Aid.............................................................................................................. 64 Service Contracts Job Aid............................................................................................................. 65 Appendix D - AMP/Sub-AMP Activity Description/Scope List.......................................................... 66 Figures Figure 2-1 Operations (CEO) Organizational Chart................................................................................ 5 Figure 2-2 CEOE Performance Maturity Model..................................................................................... 6 Figure 2-3 Facility Life Cycle Costs......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2-4 Work Prioritization Categories............................................................................................. 9 Figure 5-1 CEOE AMPS and Sub-AMPs................................................................................................. 31 Figure 5-5 Operations Activity Management....................................................................................... 35 Figure Appendix B-1 CEOER Mission Essential Level 1 Tasks and Manpower..................................... 58 Tables Table 3-1 WM Basic Capability............................................................................................................. 12 Table 3-2 WM Developing Capability................................................................................................... 13 Table 3-3 WM Mature Capability......................................................................................................... 14 Table 4-1 PM Basic Capability.............................................................................................................. 25 Table 4-2 PM Developing Capability.................................................................................................... 26 Table 4-3 PM Matured Capability........................................................................................................ 27 Table 5-1 AMP Basic Capability............................................................................................................ 32 Table 5-2 AMP Developing Capability.................................................................................................. 33 Table 5-3 AMP Matured Capability...................................................................................................... 34 Table 6-1 Materiel Control Basic Capability......................................................................................... 39 Table 6-2 Materiel Control Developing Capability............................................................................... 40 Table 6-3 Materiel Control Matured Capability................................................................................... 41 Table 7-1 Service Contract Basic Capability......................................................................................... 48 Table 7-2 Service Contracts Developing Capability............................................................................. 49 Table 7-3 Service Contracts Matured Capability................................................................................. 49 Page | 3  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Chapter 1 Introduction - Operations Engineering (CEOE) – Overview The objective of the CEOE playbook is to provide a roadmap for the implementation and execution of the major CEOE functions and to provide a basic description of the elements, primary roles and responsibilities. This playbook uses a simplified interface with minimal in-depth ‘how-to’ covered in other Operations related playbooks. As a result of the wide range of CEOE, CEOER staff capacities and process execution depth, this playbook attempts to identify key functions of CEOE and emphasizes practical, checklist-like actions to focus CEO and CEOE leadership on achieving core capabilities described in the performance maturity model. The goal is to develop plans to move up in the performance maturity model to provide proactive management actions leading to the most optimal resource decisions for the Operations Flight to best support overall maintenance management. This playbook identifies a corporate view of ‘what’s important’ as a roadmap to this goal. This playbook uses Job-Aids to provide overarching guidance for all major areas within CEOE. While the Job Aids are not all inclusive, they provide a baseline operating level for work management, materiel control, service contracts, and Activity Management Plan (AMP) management based on the maturity and performance level of the CEOE element. These Job Aids are provided digitally in Appendix C and can be modified as required for local performance targets, etc. 1.1 How to Use This Playbook This Playbook is intended to bring the Operations Flight community to the Performance Maturity Model from a Basic Capability to a Mature Capability. Job Aids are provided to assist Operations Engineering leadership to develop their programs. As Operations Engineering programs mature and IT systems reach a steady-state, this Playbook will be updated to assist in our journey up the Performance Maturity Model pyramid and lead CE Operations to evolve from a Basic capability level performance to operating effectively at a Mature capability level. The job aids will guide the evolution of Operations Engineering, through the tailored guidance, building on each other, maintaining each level as the next level is achieved. Limitations: This Playbook does not replace, supersede, or circumvent existing DoD or Air Force policy. Applicability: This Playbook is written for Operations Flight leadership, to include the flight commander, deputy, and superintendents of all elements within the flight. This playbook describes the general responsibilities for personnel in a CEOE, CEOER, CEOEM, or CEOES leadership role. Further guidance specific to these sections is found in the Work Management, Preventive Maintenance, Materiel Control, Service Contracts, and SMS Playbooks. Page | 4  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Chapter 2 Operations Flight - The BIG Picture To begin, let us review the following opening from AFI 32-1001, Operations Management, which defines the Operations Flight’s objective: The Operations Flight’s main objective is to effectively operate, maintain, and repair Air Force facility and infrastructure assets classified as real property or real property installed equipment (RPIE). Operations Flights, or equivalent contracted function, must utilize common reporting tools and procedures to gather data, conduct analysis, and make decisions on operating, maintaining, and repairing its assets to maximize mission accomplishment and return on investment (ROI), from an Air Force-wide, risk based perspective. Operations Flights will achieve this as follows: - Provide execution, management, and oversight of facility and infrastructure operations, maintenance and repair, materiel control, work planning, customer service, service contract management, and operations engineering. - Maintain capability to respond to and eliminate any facility or infrastructure related emergency condition 24 hours a day. - Conduct all activities in compliance with applicable environmental, fire, and safety laws, codes, and directives as directed. CEOE consists of three sections: Requirements & Optimization (CEOER), Service Contracts (CEOES), and Materiel Control (CEOEM). The organizational structure depicted in AFI 32-1001 is shown below: Operations (CEO) CEO Deputy CEO Superintendent Infrastructure Operations Missile Facility Heavy Repair Facility Systems Systems Engineering Maintenance (CEOH) (CEOF) (CEOI) (CEOE) (CEOM) Environmental Requirements Specialized Structures Fire Alarms Control Systems & Optimization Maintenance 1 (CEOHS) (CEOIC) (CEOFA) (CEOER) (CEOM1) Pavements & Water & Fuel Service Specialized Electrical Shop Equipment Systems Maint Contracts Maintenance 2 (CEOFE) (CEOHP) (CEOIU) (CEOES) (CEOM2) Power Materiel Specialized Entomology Production Control Maintenance 3 (CEOIE) (CEOFP) (CEOEM) (CEOM3) HVAC (CEOIH) Figure 2-1 Operations (CEO) Organizational Chart CEOE, circled in red above, combines the best aspects of customer service and planning with Requirements & Optimization capabilities. The CEOE team is responsible for ensuring optimal resource decisions are made and executed every day across Operations Flight activities, and ensuring data and knowledge from all Operations Flight shops are applied to AMPs and investment plans. Page | 5  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 2.1 CEOER The intent of CEOER is to shift the Operations Flight paradigm. In addition to the traditional role of interfacing with customers to gather and validate requirements, CEOER will allow the Operations Flight to put more focus on proactive systems performance analysis, resource optimization, and lifecycle requirements planning. CEOER completes this through two major lines of effort: Work Management and AMP/Sub-AMP management. CEOE is the heart of the Operations Flight. All key work management and materiel acquisition processes start and end in CEOE. Successful achievement of the objectives directly reflects on the effectiveness of the CEOE team. The goal of this playbook is to assist CEOE teams in moving from Basic to Developing capabilities as shown in the CEOE Performance Maturity Model in Figure 2-2. Figure 2-2 CEOE Performance Maturity Model (Based on Maintenance Excellence Institute’s Reliability Pyramid) This playbooks approach examines each key deliverable process within CEOE and focuses on the Basic and Developing expectations required to understand and execute to improve synergistic efforts within CEOE and the squadron in support of the installation mission. Each section provides insight and guidance as to what MUST be achieved to operate an effectively transformed CE Operations Flight. This model is a guide from an enterprise-wide vantage point. Experience, depth, continuity, leadership support, mission and special interest are all intangibles that also influence the results of Operations Flight programs. Staff size helps, but does not guarantee, the ability to move up the pyramid. Maturing CEOE programs are fragile and require a commitment to maintaining and preserving forward progress when the reduction of personnel can reduce CEOE performance. *Note: AFCEC will begin to develop benchmarks, KPIs and reports for use at installations to measure Operations Flight performance once enough installations have reached a steady- Page | 6  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook state in TRIRIGA. Installations that have recommendations for measuring Operations Flight performance are requested to submit them here. 2.2 Operations Flight – The Resource Realities Over time, the Operations Flight has had to become more effective and efficient with their processes as resources, manpower and money have been reduced. Operations Flights bring a capability to the AF spanning from maintenance to construction at home station and overseas. However, a major role of the Operations Flight is ‘caretaker’ and ‘advocate’ for existing real property. The standup of CEOE was intended to ensure that as a maintenance caretaker/advocate, the Operations Flight could efficiently facilitate the lifecycle of infrastructure assets across these major elements in a resource constrained environment through data collection, analysis, and strategic maintenance management:  Acquisition: planning, design, construction  Maintenance and repair  Operations  Recapitalization and renewal  Disposal: transition, transfer, disposal The Operations Flight actively works in all of these categories with the bulk of the efforts in the middle three areas. According to the International Facility Management Association (IFMA) Operations & Maintenance Total Cost of Ownership Model - 2014, facility management can run 60-80 percent of the total cost of ownership for a facility. The following chart is based on data Whitestone Research gathered when analyzing the facility life cycle costs over a 50-year view of an 83,000 gross square feet office building in Washington DC. Figure 2-3 Facility Life Cycle Costs So what does this mean to CEOE? It means the Air Force is counting on the CEOE team to do the best it can with the resources available in terms of both dollars and time. Page | 7  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 2.3 Managing Operations Flight Manpower CEOE must become aware of the time (capacity) the Operations Flight has available to address requirements. This should not be performed after the fact or at the end of every month, it should be determined in advance and used to schedule work and evaluate the estimated rate of return on that work. Consider the following: 1. Craftsmen Full Time Equivalents (C-FTE) = How many C-FTEs do you have? 2. Availability Rate (AR) = What is your AR, e.g., what percent of work time can you get on average after supervision, leave, time-off awards, training, sports days, etc. are taken out? Your Deployable Work Hour Balance = 8 hours x C-FTE x AR. For example, the flight has 200 assigned craftsmen. (NOTE: this is referring to funded positions on the unit manning document actually filled with a person.) If you can only field an AR of 65% then the Operations Flight’s Deployable Work Hour Balance (for this month) is: 8 hours x 200 x 0.65 = 1040 deployable work hours At a minimum, this balance must cover all emergency work, preventive maintenance, plant operations, and other discretionary requirements. For this reason, CE adopted a focus on shifting the Operations Flight paradigm to put more focus on proactive systems performance analysis, resource optimization, and lifecycle requirements planning versus low risk sustainment and enhancement work. Understanding the labor hours available is critical when interfacing with customers to gather, validate, accept/deny, and execute emergent requirements identified internally and externally to the CE squadron. The resource pool will change monthly! CEOER must gain complete situational awareness of the deployable hour balance, understand why it is changing, how the changes impact the Operations Flight, proactively manage requirements to the work capacity and examine steps to increase manpower availability. Personnel (C-FTE) – The Operations Chief or Deputy must know what manning the Operations Flight is authorized to articulate the impacts of vacant positions as a percent of the flight’s total deployable hours.  What percent of UMD authorizations are funded but not filled?  If there are vacant military or civilian positions, are you working within the squadron to get the right fill priorities?  For civilians are you aggressively initiating fill actions in advance of the actual departure? Average WG fill actions will likely take at least 3 months. Availability Rate (AR) - Increasing or optimizing ARs is one of the few areas the Operations Flight can directly manage to increase the deployable work hour capacity.  What is the AR (monthly, annually, and seasonally)? No CE unit will have an AR of 100% and within CE units there is a difference between the AR of military and civilian craftsmen. Typical reasons for decreases in AR (or increases in indirect time) typically include: Page | 8  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook  Supervision for shop leadership  Training  Leave (often seasonal in nature)  TDY  Admin  Shop/vehicle clean-up  Loaned hours  Physical Training If the AR is 65%, then for every 100 total available hours, 35 hours of actual production or direct maintenance execution time are being lost. Indirect time is not necessarily bad, in fact it is necessary to run an O&M operation, but all indirect time charged should be scrutinized and shop leadership held accountable. Ops Flight Work Balance - CEOE should identify scheduled work up to a year in advance (developing maturity level). This view employs the flight to optimize resources, make informed materiel procurement decisions and influence expectations of squadron and wing leadership. The basis for scheduling should be the work prioritization model, which places emphasis on Preventive Maintenance (PM) and Plant Ops (PO) over Corrective Maintenance (CM) and enhancement. With a dependable monthly baseline of total deployable work hours available:  Manage schedules monthly, quarterly, and annually to proactively balance the resources against the fixed bills like PM and PO (both will likely consume about 35- 55% of the total monthly maintenance budget). Historically CE spends about 1% of total direct hours on emergencies, but these requirements vary seasonally and by shop.  Budget hours realistically towards CM, review tentative schedules 6-12 months out.  Blend CE identified work, external customer requirements, and larger facility projects the Operations Flight would like to execute for training.  Achieve the cornerstones of the in-house maintenance investment strategy when resources are projected to be available. When scheduled hours have been, or will nearly be depleted, this limited resource availability should be a primary factor in determining whether to accept work. Accepting all work with no limits will result in unsolvable backlogs. Figure 2-4 Work Prioritization Categories Page | 9  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Tracking requirements and work history across the four classifications provides a strategic picture of the resources required to support CE operations work. Executing work in accordance with the Work Priority Implementation Plan and accurately tracking this work will ensure the correct resources are applied to address local mission risk, resource constraints and readiness training requirements. 2.4 CEOE Deliverables With a clear understanding of the work balance available to the flight and an accurate inventory and assessment of RP/RPIE condition, the engineers and technicians assigned to CEOER can accurately produce and continuously improve the following five deliverables: 1. CM Analysis and Planning: CM Plan for in-house and contracted work. 2. PM/PO Analysis and Programming: PM Program and Plan based on sound risk management described in the PM Playbook. 3. Requirements identification and prioritization through standard repeatable Sub- AMP and AMP processes: annually prioritize CM or replacement activities in an integrated planning document. 4. Support to CEN on cradle-to-grave contract execution: schedule for contract project opportunity delivery. 5. Process and issues management: manage processes and issues for Sub-AMPs’ specific assets/systems. All five of these processes and deliverables focus on executing asset management at every level of the CE Enterprise and should answer two basic questions that civil engineers face: 1. Where is the best place to invest our time and money? 2. How do we get the most out of every dollar we spend? These deliverables and basic questions serve as the foundation CEOE uses to grade itself. The remainder of this playbook will guide you to understanding management actions you can lead, in phased performance maturity gradients, to achieve optimal programs answering these key questions. This version of the Operations Engineering Playbook will not address strategies for SMS data collection. Guidance and strategies for collection can be found in the SMS Playbook. Page | 10  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Chapter 3 Work Management (CEOER) The overall foundation of CEO Work Management (WM) lies within the Work Prioritization System as explained below. Details can be found in the Work Prioritization Implementation Plan. Responding to infrastructure emergencies is the Operations Flight’s number one priority. Remaining direct work hours will go toward PM, PO, and sustainment (CM) and a limited amount of enhancement work when labor hours are available. CEOER must consider safety and mission risks as well as areas where failure to act would lead to further degradation when categorizing work as 3A/3B/3C. Since labor-hours are limited, CEOER must adopt an overall execution strategy that directs actions to minimize maintenance risk and provides customers with rationale if their requirement is delayed. Any remaining direct hours will be used for in-house enhancement work that aligns with other AMP and investment plans. This maintenance risk methodology provides focus on those specific types of maintenance and repair that mitigate emergencies and allows an asset management approach to sustain real property and RPIE assets. Following the standard process for accepting, prioritizing, executing, and closing work is critical to optimizing resources controlled by the Operations Flight and feeding accurate information to facilitate AMP/Sub-AMP processes. Please see Appendix C for associated Job Aids to assist you with leading WM efforts, Chapter 4 for PM information and Figure 2-4 for further information on AF CE work prioritization. The purpose of the WM section of CEOER is to manage requirements and supporting business processes and requirements of the Operations Engineering Element and other Facilities Operation and Facilities Sustainment capabilities as defined in this Playbook. Page | 11  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 3.1 WM Basic Capability WM programs operating at a Basic Capability will be compliant with 32, 36, 38, 63, 65 and 91 series AFIs and supporting Playbooks and Reference Guides. They will also be comprised of the basic requirements that must be met to perform and comply with Civil Engineering and other agencies’ requirements. WM programs operating at a basic capability will provide adequate management of work requests, assignments for execution, and job completion. Table 3-1 below illustrates the Basic Capability requirements. BASIC CAPABILITY  Ensure all non-emergency Service Requests (SR) are put into TRIRIGA by Facility Manager (FM) or craftsman and not taken via telephone (exceptions, no access to TRIRIGA).  Confirm only emergency SRs are allowed to be called in (other than exceptions).  Confirm shop foremen have reported breakages, leaks, failures to the Geospatial Information System WEEKLY (GIS) manager for updating corresponding asset attribute.  Verify CEOER oversees an established standard process to receive, assign and monitor the schedule process by shops for all Work Tasks (WT).  Confirm CEOE has established annual budget oversight for the Operations Flight.  Ensure CEOER is using appropriate guidance to validate Service Requests (SR).  Review shop complete PM Work Tasks (WT) or others with no labor charged.  Confirm Facility Managers’ (FM) System Authorization Access Requests (SAAR) for TRIRIGA access were submitted and completed. MONTHLY  Ensure FMs are trained.  Confirm the CEOE schedules a Work Request Review Board (WRRB) meeting at least once a month.  Coordinate WRRB requirements prior to review.  Verify procedures are in place to ensure in-house equipment replacements, e.g., RPIE, are communicated to CEOER to include nameplate information, date installed and warranty documentation.  Confirm shop foremen have charged labor, returned materiel, uploaded equipment documentation and other actions, prior to and/or immediately following clicking the 'Complete' button in TRIRIGA, to allow QUARTERLY CEOER to perform 'Close Out' actions.  Confirm shop foremen only clicked the 'Complete' button on Work Tasks (WT) (besides Preventive Maintenance (PM) WTs) at the time of completion and not the 'Close' button.  Verify after hours Emergency SR processes are created and followed.  Ensure a work and materiel management process has been created in case of Computer/Network ANNUAL Outages.  Did CEOE direct CEOER and Materiel Control to establish a U-Fix-It Program? Table 3-1 WM Basic Capability Page | 12  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 3.2 WM Developing Capability WM programs operating at a Developing Capability will begin to formalize business processes and requirements found in the Basic Capability, but might not be exclusive to the Basic Capability. These processes will ensure stakeholders from the shops, engineers, customers and Sub-AMP/AMP managers are involved in achieving compliance with requirements and expounding on the Basic requirements. Table 3-2 below illustrates the Developing Capability requirements. DEVELOPING CAPABILITY  Ask CEOER for a report (or identify a community report) for shops verifying labor has been input and to manage the schedule outside TRIRIGA.  Ensure communication and expectation management is in place and CE customers are aware of business processes and TRIRIGA requirements.  Establish Key Performance Indicators (KPI) : 95% of all customer phone calls are exclusively for emergency requests (TRIRIGA base)  CEO has a weekly meeting covering: WEEKLY Work by priority, scheduled vs actual, man-hour availability. Briefing of established Operations Flight KPIs. Special interest items, i.e., utility outages.  CEOE is tracking funds to ensure appropriate; oversight of expenditures, delegated funding authorizations are not exceeded and requirements sent to Materiel Control do not exceed budget authority (Anti- Deficiency Act).  Establish KPIs for tracking funds.  Compare/review schedule requirements pending across CE shops.  Confirm a Monthly Report of Facility Managers (FM) was run and the FM master list was revalidated monthly based on annual assignment date.  Perform one of the following actions for Individuals Non-Validated on Master FM List (PCS’d/no longer FM/etc.): Remove member from TRIRIGA and request replacement FM from unit commander via memo. Remove member from FM Listing and request replacement FM from unit commander via memo. MONTHLY  Perform one of the following actions for Individuals Validated on Master FM List: Update training date with date validated as still the FM. Revalidate in one year.  Ensure BCE (delegated authority), CEO leadership, CEOE, CEOER, Materiel Control, Service Contracts, Engineering, Environmental, Energy, Real Property, coordination agencies, and others are attending the WRRB.  Verify CEOER warranty is updated/added to the asset record when equipment is installed or replaced.  Verify CEOER validated 'Completed' Work Tasks (WT) and performed 'Close Out’ actions on 'Complete' WTs QUARTERLY (Facility Projects as required). Periodically, WTs must be reopened if a requirement is missed.  Confirm the Work Priority System is followed, e.g., completing 2A/2B/3A work prior to 3B/3C work.  Validate historical 3C priority work to see if there were any small/minor highly repetitive tasks that materiel ANNUAL could be provided to the FM via U-Fix-It program and added to list of available materiel. Table 3-2 WM Developing Capability Page | 13  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 3.3 WM Matured Capability WM programs operating at a Matured Capability begin to measure their programs against external benchmarks obtained from the private sector and other DoD installations. They establish minimum expectations to meet while providing areas of improvement and improving locally developed metrics and processes based on mission and other mandated requirements. They will begin to provide training opportunities to correct program deficiencies identified in the Basic and Developing phases. Table 3-3 below illustrates the Matured Capability requirements. MATURED  Validate CEOER established a standard report to ensure labor is being put in the system by the shops. WEEKLY  Key Performance Indicator (KPI) 99.9%  Are only Emergency SRs being allowed to be called in (besides exceptions, i.e., no access to TRIRIGA)?  CEOE should determine if weekly CEO meetings are providing on-target results.  Review Scheduled vs. Actual Reported Time.  Meet or exceed established KPIs.  Has CEOE ensured CEOER has evaluated the Facility Management Program KPIs? MONTHLY  Ensure a working relationship with Military Personnel Flight (MPF) to ensure the Facility Management Program is added to base virtual out-processing checklist.  Ensure program is fluid where agencies are fully on board with new business processes with no points of failure in process.  Superintendent: Establish Quality Assessment and Evaluation (QAE) function to validate shop and CEOER interactions. Use 5% sampling of completed shop requirements to ensure they have appropriate materiel placed in Work Task (WT) record, Building Equipment asset associated to WT as appropriate, DD1354 processed if needed, Preventive Maintenance (PM) developed, TRIRIGA/Appropriate SMS updated as needed, and materiel expended used on job site, etc. KPI: 99.9%  Superintendent: TRIRIGA help desk tickets are not commonly required to be submitted to reopen WTs that were 'Closed' prior to all 'close out requirements'. All required close out actions have been QUARTERLY performed before CEOER clicks the ‘Close-Out’ button. KPI 99.9%  Confirm a CE customer prioritization program, e.g., “Top-10” exists.  Verify that risk matrix events have occurred on all assets to determine viability of PM requirements and adjust program based on Return on Investment (ROI). SEMI-  Have opportunities such as over hires, Air Reserve Component (ARC), overtime, 1219 Program, contracts, ANNUAL etc., been evaluated as possible force support to complete mission requirements?  Verify that risk matrix events have occurred on all assets to determine viability of PM requirements and adjust program based on Return on Investment (ROI).  U-Fix-It Program: Research, provide and maintain a listing of over-the-counter materiel to FMs.  Review collective data over past 12 months based on monthly Superintendent QAE of shop and CEOER interaction. ANNUAL  Determine trends, shortfalls, areas for improvement and corrective actions; then implement, monitor and re-evaluate.  Evaluate ROI for establishing/maintaining a high use facility AF1219 like program to better manage high- volume, low-effort tasks to satisfy FM requirements. Table 3-3 WM Mature Capability Page | 14  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 3.4 Discussion on Elements of the Work Management Job Aid 3.4.1 Section 1: Basic Capability Do you ensure all non-emergency Service Requests (SRs) are being placed into TRIRIGA by the Facility Manager (FM) or craftsman and not taken via telephone (besides exceptions, i.e., no access to TRIRIGA)? As a result of the reduction of CE personnel from CE Transformation requirements, manpower has been shifted from fielding on demand requirements to better managing requirements (i.e., Asset Management Principals) on a life-cycle basis. Processing SRs via the telephone takes exponentially longer than if an FM or craftsman enters it into TRIRIGA. The gains achieved in this area are needed in CEOER to counter the additional time required to manage requirements within TRIRIGA. Do you ensure only emergency SRs are being allowed to be called in (other than exceptions, i.e., no access to TRIRIGA)? You should emphasize during training that only emergency SRs will be called into CE and that they should not be inputting emergency requirements solely in TRIRIGA and assuming CE will respond.  Call CE, if the FM is unsure the SR meets the requirements for an emergency.  CEOER CSU will determine if the call is an emergency or not.  If the call does not qualify as an emergency the FM will be directed to input the requirement into TRIRIGA. Do you ensure SRs are being documented or recorded into the corresponding GIS layer to indicate a breakage, leak, outage, or general failure occurred on the respective asset? Craftsman or Sub-Activity Manager should contact the GIS manager to ensure the type of failure is properly documented into the GIS. This is critical to ensuring the health of the system and predictive failures or trends can be generated to identify systemic issues and potential SRM projects. Verify CEOER oversees established standard process to receive, assign and monitor the schedule process by shops for all Work Tasks (WT). To more effectively advocate and defend the Operations Flight workload to the BCE and Wing Leadership, the Operations Flight needs to manage work load requirements.  Ensure shop foremen are made aware of future requirements.  De-conflict workload with PM and other priority WT requirements.  Define and inform schedule risk to manage inserts accordingly. Did CEOE establish standard annual budget oversight for the Operations Flight? CEOE must ensure the Operations Flight executes according to the requirements identified when developing its budget. Regardless of the method used, i.e., spreadsheet or TRIRIGA, a process must be in place to continuously track the current status of funds within CEO’s account and show pertinent details on expenditures to include: who authorized the Page | 15  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook expense, the purchase request or funding document that facilitated the expense, and the work task or training requirement that the expense supported. Did CEOE ensure CEOER CSU is using appropriate guidance to validate SRs? Use of appropriate AFIs and supporting playbooks, reference guides and other funding resources to validate incoming SRs must be incorporated in day-to-day business processes. CE should not expend limited resources by performing Work Tasks (WTs) that are not legally supported by Operations Flight appropriated resources. To ensure the CSU is not allowing non-CE requirements or other non-essential work to flow directly to the shops, and/or not meet the Work Request Review Board (WRRB) process where appropriate, the CSU must be well versed in:  Real Property vs. Non-Real Property.  Appropriated vs. Non-Appropriated funded requirements.  How to check for duplicate requirements.  Filing/system process to check for previously disapproved requirements being resubmitted. Establish a filing/system process to check for previously approved installation projects for non-appropriated requirements that do not meet appropriated funding for follow up Maintenance and Repair (M&R). Did CEOE monitor shop complete PM or other WTs with no labor charged? Work completed with no hours should be scrutinized as this could be interpreted as poor management. Excessive PM work tasks completed with no labor indicates shop priorities may not be on PM or shop does not have capacity to accomplish requiring a re-evaluation of their job plans with respect to accepting more maintenance risk. Regular corrective maintenance WTs completed with no time logged may be an indicator of backlog created by accepting more work than can be accomplished with current shop(s) capacity and/or availability rate. Remember AFIMSC is able to pull reports across the CE Enterprise to evaluate work management. Did CEOE ensure CEOER is having FMs submit SAARs for TRIRIGA access and utilizing TRIRIGA to submit requirements? FMs should not be allowed to call in non-emergencies. CEOER manpower and workload requirements are reduced through the use of the FM suite within TRIRIGA. The TRIRIGA system and its capabilities were implemented by AF/A4C for the power, performance and capabilities it provides to the CE Enterprise. Did CEOE ensure CEOER is training FMs? FMs should be trained on their roles and responsibilities to include facilitating minor maintenance and repair requirements, and communicating with facility occupants on pertinent facility issues, local policies in place, and work they should identify to their FM. Page | 16  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Does CEOE hold a Work Request Review Board (WRRB) at least once a month? Based on the volume of ‘new’ facility requirements, the CEOE should facilitate the WRRB for the Operations Flight Commander. Did CEOE ensure WRRB requirements were coordinated prior to meeting? As part of standard CE Business Processes the coordination should be obtained prior to the facility project being reviewed by the WRRB. Did CEOE ensure there are procedures in place to ensure in-house equipment replacements, e.g., RPIE, are communicated to CEOER to include nameplate information, date installed and warranty documentation? CEOER should be reviewing all completed Work Tasks (WT) as a normal Work Management Business Process. As part of the evaluation:  Identify assets to load as new or retired in TRIRIGA and SMS. If CM significantly changes asset condition status, CEOER should update SMS with a revised assessment.  Shops should add as much detailed information about the added and/or removed asset into the Notes and Documents section of the WT. Strongly consider including photographs of newly installed assets for a baseline.  Assets should be tied to the WT by the shop foreman and should be the original asset identified for M&R or replacement. Did CEOE ensure CEOER evaluated completed WTs to ensure shop foremen were charging labor, returning materiel, uploading equipment documentation, and completing other actions (as applicable) prior to and/or immediately following clicking the 'Complete' button in TRIRIGA to allow CEOER to perform 'Close Out' actions? CEOER should be reviewing all completed WTs as a normal Work Management Business Process. As part of the evaluation they should be identifying:  Missing Labor  Materiel not processed  Missing documentation Note that PM Work Tasks will be directly completed and closed by shops with no CEOER involvement. Shop foremen should perform the same level review of PM WTs. Did CEOE ensure CEOER evaluated WTs to ensure shop foremen only hit the 'Complete' button on WTs (besides PM WTs) at the time of completion and not hit the 'Close' button? CEOER must run a report to compare against ‘Close’ status work to ensure it has been evaluated and ‘Closed’ by CEOER (Exception: PM WTs) and that all required actions are complete. Did CEOE ensure after hours Emergency SR processes were created and followed? There is no AF standard for the entire CE Enterprise on after hours Emergency SR response procedures. The local CEOE should ensure the Operations Flight Commander’s policy is in Page | 17  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook place and published to the FMs (as part of their duties) to be advertised to their respective facility customers.  Review after-hour Emergency SR processes for effectiveness and advertise to base customers.  There should be processes and procedures published in the FM Handbook and briefed to FMs during their initial training. Did CEOE ensure work and materiel management processes were created in case of computer/network outages?  CEOE should ensure all sections have a process in place to support base customers for extended network/computer outages.  During short-term outages, most installations direct the customer to hold non- emergency work until the system is restored and submit through the automated system/installation process.  There should be processes and procedures published in the FM Handbook and briefed to FMs during their initial training. Did CEOE direct CEOER and Materiel Control to establish a U-Fix-It Program? CEOE needs to allow CEOER to work with Materiel Control to build a list of minor maintenance and repair materiels to provide to the FM through the U-Fix-It Program. The more minor maintenance performed by the FM, the fewer backlog items of requirements for the shops. There are certain AFIs that direct the customer (FM) to perform work. See the Work Management Playbook for additional details. 3.4.2 Section 2: Developing Capability Did you have CEOER create a report (or identify a community report to shops) for shops to run to ensure labor has been input and so they can adequately manage their schedule outside TRIRIGA? CEOER needs to provide a tool for the shops to use to manage their personnel and ensure all daily labor inputs have been entered. Without a report the shops will find it very hard to ensure each craftsman’s time was entered and done correctly. CEOE should ensure communication and expectation management is in full swing and CE customers are aware of business processes and new TRIRIGA requirements.  Establish KPI: < 1% of annual direct hours for emergency work. > 95% of customer phone calls are exclusively for emergency work requests (TRIRIGA base). CEOE should ensure CEO (or delegated authority) is holding a weekly meeting covering:  Scheduled Work Tasks  Scheduled tasks need to be discussed to de-conflict requirements with the shop, with larger projects and with upcoming requirements injected into the schedule by leadership.  Scheduled & Ongoing Facility Projects Page | 18  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook  Larger projects require more coordination and should be discussed amongst leadership. This will help the Operations Flight Commander defend labor hours when leadership tries to inject other priority work into the schedule.  Established CEOER Maintenance KPIs  Shop foremen should be made aware of established metrics and CEOER should periodically analyze data against maintenance KPIs to identify any issues to address.  Proposed Investment Opportunities  CEOER should identify (through metrics and other data analysis) areas of improvement, systems set for run-to-failure that need projects, and other pertinent issues where management can be proactive.  Status of Scheduling Upcoming Utility Outages  Estimated duration, date, customer(s) affected.  Outages could negatively affect other CE operations to include facility projects and WTs. Discussion of time, duration and who is affected will help with scheduling work.  Command interest items/requirements.  Inserted leadership priorities affect shop management and should be discussed in open forum to de-conflict them with other requirements and priorities. A tool should be developed to see where these inserts affect the overall schedule by shop, note conflicts and manage customer expectations.  Reliance on TRIRIGA live reports supporting above categories where applicable.  Goal is to reduce dependence on multiple, overlapping management systems and tools. Is CEOE ensuring CEOER is tracking funds and reporting those to CEOE; and is CEOE briefing CEO? TRIRIGA does not have the same capability as legacy IWIMS to establish an alert when funding reaches a threshold in comparison to approved amounts. CEOER will need to create and run a periodic report to ensure the actual costs compared to the approved amount in Facility Projects does not exceed the approved amount, do not exceed the approval authorities set limit, do not exceed funds available at the time or established congressional limits, and do not violate other funding rules set in AFIs, or other policy guidance. CEOE ensures:  Appropriate oversight of expenditures.  Appropriate delegated funding approval/authorization levels are not exceeded.  Approvals/authorizations reaching limits are approved/authorized at the next level prior to proceeding.  Requirements to include materiel expenditures do not exceed budget authority (Anti Deficiency Act).  KPIs are established. Page | 19  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Is CEOE ensuring CEOER compares/reviews schedule requirements pending across CE shops? Are requirements not being accomplished in one or more shops even though the workforce is available? CEOER should be running reports to evaluate anomalies and identify where the workforce man-hours are expended. KPI: Number of WTs closed with no hours. Is a backlog of work growing that exceeds flight’s capacity of available hours? KPI: % of WTs meeting agreed customer commitment date to start work by work priority by both shop and Operations Flight as a whole. Has CEOE ensured CEOER processed the Monthly Report of FMs and revalidated the FM Master List monthly based on annual assignment date? Create KPIs to evaluate the Facility Management Program and to help hold the program manager, FM and unit commanders accountable. 100% KPIs: Each month contact those with an assignment date of 365+ days ago. 90-95% KPI: Response from FM within 30 days of being contacted. 100% KPI: Validated by second month or FM kicked from the roles and TRIRIGA and new FM letter requested from the respective unit commander. Has CEOE ensured CEOER has updated FM records based on annual revalidation requirements in the Work Management Playbook? Individuals who are not re-validated on Master FM List (PCS’d, no longer FM, retired, etc.):  Remove member from TRIRIGA.  Remove member from FM Listing.  Request replacement FM from unit commander via memorandum. Individuals who are re-validated on Master FM List:  Update training date on Master FM List with the date they were re-validated as still being a current FM.  Re-validate in 1 year. Is the CEOE ensuring the BCE (or delegated authority), CEO leadership, CEOE, CEOER, Materiel Control, Service Contracts, Engineering, Environmental, Energy, Real Property, coordination agencies, and others as applicable are attending the WRRB? All appropriate parties are required to facilitate a decision on how a particular requirement should be processed within CE. Missing parties limit the ability to make a proper, informed decision on a particular requirement. The WRRB process streamlines the review and final decision on any particular requirement. Is the CEOE ensuring CEOER updates/adds warranty data to the asset record when equipment is installed or replaced? As part of the CEOER evaluation of completed WTs, identify new assets and assets that can be added and/or retired in TRIRIGA and SMS. New assets requiring PM should be built in TRIRIGA and the warranty date applied. Load all assets required to be in the appropriate Page | 20  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook SMS until a data bridge can be built into TRIRIGA to those systems. Develop a KPI on the higher-end scale to hold CEOER accountable.  KPI: 99.9% - Build required asset in TRIRIGA. Associate warranty information to asset and load information into appropriate SMS. Did CEOE have CEOER validate 'Completed' WTs and perform required 'Close Out’ actions on 'Complete' WT (including Facility Projects as required)?  Foremen perform the required inputs for initial Basic actions. Developing capability calls for CEOE to ensure the CEOER section analyzes ‘Complete’ WTs and performs necessary ‘Close Out’ procedures. To ensure proper cost accounting and asset management the necessary steps outlined in the Close-Out Checklist (follow the link or click the reference tab at the top of the page to access the document) and the local CE unit must occur. Financial Improvement and Audit Readiness (FIAR) compliance supported by accurate DD1354 capitalization is a critical action for CEOER to accomplish. Did CEOE compare priorities: Are the shops working on 3B/3C work when 2A/2B/3A are not being completed? Occasionally lower priority work could be injected into the schedule. This should be the exception and not the rule. CEOER should help manage customer expectations by ensuring processes are in place to ensure all maintenance and repair requirements (such as 3C work) are achieved over a longer period of time or through other avenues. Alternate processes are outlined in the Work Management Playbook such as a Facility Maintenance Team (or 1219 Maintenance Team). Did CEOER do yearly validation of historical 3C priority/minor work to see if there were any small/minor tasks that were highly repetitive that materiel could be provided to the FM via U-Fix-It program and added to the list of available materiel(s)? CEOE should have CEOER perform analysis and have Materiel Control provide materiel data to drive down in-house shop maintenance and repair requirements that the FM can perform. CEOER CSU and other appropriate parties should be made aware of updates to the materiels being provided. The CEOER should validate FM-submitted WTs to ensure they are not requirements that can be performed using U-Fix-It Program materiel. CEOE should ensure CEOER is not accepting SRs/WTs that the FM should be accomplishing. 3.4.3 Section 3: Mature Capability Has CEOER utilized/established a standard report to ensure labor is being put in the system by the shops? KPI: 99.9% completeness and accuracy of daily time reporting and first duty day post-to- post entry for any weekend/holiday work. Page | 21  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Did CEOE ensure research was performed on the U-Fix-It Program and the materiel used for it was based on research? Did CEOE adjust available materiel and provide and maintain a listing of over the counter materiel to FMs and others necessary?  Did the number of SR/WTs input by FMs drop because the materiel required was added to the list of available U-Fix-It Program materiel? (Validates previous addition of materiel to list.)  Were CSU members NOT ‘Rejecting’ 3C type work that had materiels available on the list and failed to direct FMs to the U-Fix-It Store, causing additional manpower requirements on the shops?  Were there 3C type requirements that could have been completed by the FM using U-Fix-It materiel, but the materiel was not on the approved list? (Consider adding this materiel to the available list of U-Fix-It materiel.)  Is there materiel on the list that should not be based on non-usage or other issues? Are only Emergency SRs being allowed to be called in (besides exceptions, i.e., no access to TRIRIGA)? Evaluate KPIs to determine if management needs to review and follow up on. CEOE should determine if weekly CEO meetings are providing on-target results.  Analyze KPIs that were developed.  Are KPIs being met or exceeded? If not, determine causes and seek to adjust process/procedures as necessary.  Are there any areas that need to be added or addressed in regards to the CEO meetings being held?  Adjust as needed, evaluate and follow up. Do you have Schedule vs Actual Reported Time (WT & FP) Reports? (Note: currently scheduling function inoperable, do outside TRIRIGA.) CEOER should be investigating if there are deviations to where shops should have been working. Are deviations affecting where available hours have been scheduled and what are the causes? Is there an excessive amount of indirect labor being accomplished that CEOER can brief to leadership and seek to drive down and/or increase risk by not doing in the future to ensure base mission requirements and priority work is achieved? Is a backlog of work being accepted into the system beyond a reasonable (6-12 month) timeframe to accomplish? Has CEOE ensured CEOER has evaluated the Facility Management Program KPIs?  Analyze KPIs that were developed  Are KPIs being met or exceeded? If not, determine causes and seek to adjust process/procedures as necessary. CEOE should follow up with CEOER to ensure the Facility Management Program is added to base virtual out-processing checklist. Has CEOER established a working relationship with the MPF to add this requirement to the virtual out-processing checklist to facilitate compliance with FM Program requirements? Page | 22  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Has the WRRB process become fluid so internal/external agencies are fully on board with new business processes and there are no points of failure in the process? KPI 99.9% of all facility projects and opportunities are properly achieving necessary coordination prior to final approval. Has CEOE ensured Superintendents established a QAE function to validate shop and CEOER interactions? Evaluate a sampling of completed shop requirements to ensure they have appropriate materiel placed in WT record, Building Equipment Asset Record associated to WT as appropriate, DD Form 1354 processed, PM developed, TRIRIGA/and appropriate SMS updated as needed, and materiel expended used on job site, etc. They should ensure the TRIRIGA Help Desk tickets are not required to be submitted to reopen WTs because they were 'Closed' prematurely. Ensure all required actions as part of ‘Close Out’ actions have been performed before CEOER clicks the Close/Close-Out button. Follow up as necessary on any deficiencies, make corrective actions, and follow up. KPI: 99.9% of records completed without getting FAS tickets. Establish local KPI for % of all WTs to be closed with set period of time following shop closing work task. Is there a CE customer prioritization program, e.g., “Top 10”? Is a priority program in place for non-CE identified infrastructure requirements or mission related customer SRs; that are Enhancement (nice to have) requirements?  Mitigate an excessive amount of requirements from customers across the CE Enterprise that has historically not been completed.  CEOE, with the BCE’s support needs to establish a program to prioritize requirements from base customers.  Manage a limited amount of facility projects that fall under enhancement. Have opportunities such as over-hires, Air Reserve Component (ARC), overtime, 1219 Program, contracts, etc., been evaluated as possible force support to complete mission requirements? There are limited resources available within the CE organization to accomplish all identified work. As a result, alternative programs and means need to be considered to accomplish all backlogged, valid CM work. Has CEOE reviewed collective data over the last 12-month period based on Monthly Superintendent QAE of shop and CEOER interaction? Determine trends, shortfalls, areas for improvement. Determine if corrective actions are required and, if any, implement, monitor, and re-evaluate. Page | 23  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Evaluate ROI for establishing/maintaining a high use facility AF Form 1219 like program to better manage high-volume, low-effort tasks to satisfy FM requirements. Based on SR volume from high-use facilities, evaluate current shop-based WT responsiveness, e.g., both commitment times and ability to meet commitment times, and manning capacity to have dedicated multi-craft maintenance team on recurring visit schedule. FM will need to use the AF Form 1219 to capture a list of requirements. Page | 24  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Chapter 4 Preventive Maintenance (PM) (CEOER) One of the critical functions of CEOER is to manage the PM program in-support of the Operations Flight. These responsibilities include inventorying, assessing, validating, balancing, optimizing and scheduling PM across all shops including potential contracted asset PM. Job Aids to assist in reaching each of the Capability Levels are provided in Appendix C. 4.1 PM Basic Capability A PM program operating at a Basic Capability will be compliant with 32 series AFIs. It will have a basic inventory of Real Property/Real Property Installed Equipment (RP/RPIE) assets requiring PM, evaluate these assets in the relevant Sustainment Management Systems (SMS) and ensure Preventive Maintenance Task Lists (PMTLs) are available for all assets requiring PM. They should begin to balance available man-hours within PM requirements and ensure timely updates to TRIRIGA and SMS when changes to RP/RPIE inventories occur. Materiels tied to PM requirements will be identified and available for use without delaying scheduled PM completion and CEOE will begin developing metrics to account for basic PM completion rates. BASIC CAPABILITY  Verify all Preventive Maintenance (PM) requirements are completed and loaded into the appropriate MONTHLY SMS for population and interface with TRIRIGA (pre-IOC TRIRIGA only).  Verify the data integrity between TRIRIGA updates and the appropriate SMS.  Review and activate all PM Job Plans and Work Tasks per shop in TRIRIGA (IOC TRIRIGA only).  Determine the completion percentage of known PM requirements by week/month/year.  Verify > 25% of Direct Labor Reporting is dedicated to PM (Work Priority 2A).  Verify all assets requiring PM have a corresponding Preventive Maintenance Task List (PMTL).  Verify all Real Property Installed Equipment/Real Property (RPIE/RP) assets that require PM, but do not have a PMTL, have been submitted to the AF Preventive Maintenance (PM) Program Manager. QUARTERLY  Verify developed AF-PMTLs are used versus RSMeans.  Verify that multi-craft/shop PM requirements are synchronized by all shops.  Adjust PM program accordingly for facilities/infrastructure that have been/will be demolished.  Verify all shop equipment requiring PM, including generators and equipment, have been tied to a pseudo location (ALPHA RPUID, e.g., SHOPTOOL1).  Confirm PM required materiel is reviewed, ordered, or on hand, to perform PM throughout the year.  Confirm CEOER has activated new assets and removed old assets from TRIRIGA.  Identify and resolve backlog of asset activation/deactivation requirements. Table 4-1 PM Basic Capability Page | 25  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 4.2 PM Developing Capability PM operating at a Developing Capability will formalize processes to assess and improve the balancing and optimization of resources available to inventory, and assess and develop PM schedules. CEOERs will establish procedures to ensure all mandated life/safety inspections tied to PM schedules are occurring, including any contracted PM support. All localized PMTL requirements will be identified and uploaded into job plans, and validation of the PM program will occur annually. Develop KPIs to assess maintenance history of assets considering asset condition, PM to CM ratios and ROI. They will ensure that stakeholders from CEOER, the shops, and Sub-AMP/AMP managers are involved in PM scheduling to enhance PM program objectives. DEVELOPING CAPABILITY  Assess completeness of Real Property Installed Equipment/Real Property (RPIE/RP) assets inventory.  Verify health and life safety requirements on assets have been determined for inclusion in the PM QUARTERLY Program.  Did shops prioritize man-hours to ensure assets requiring Preventive Maintenance (PM) have hours available.  Confirm local supplemental Preventive Maintenance Task Lists (PMTL) have been created ensuring PM coverage where applicable.  Perform annual PM program validation. ANNUAL  Has CEOER developed KPIs in relation to CM versus PM? Table 4-2 PM Developing Capability Page | 26  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 4.3 PM Matured Capability PM programs operating at a Matured Capability will measure their program against internal and external benchmarks obtained from the private sector, the AF, and other DoD installations. They will maintain a full RP/RPIE asset inventory and conditionally assess that inventory to ensure the current and future state of the PM program remains balanced and optimized considering resource availability and asset condition. Identify and implement improvements in routing, multi-craft PM, and predictive materiel to deliver the most efficient PM program possible. The PM program will be reliability focused and a true assessment of life-cycle cost will enable requirements based decision making. Continuous measurement and improvement of the PM program provides data needed to understand and identify repair versus replace decisions with enough lead time to properly program facility projects or opportunities for execution. MATURED CAPABILITY  Verify that risk matrix events have occurred on all assets to determine viability of Preventive Maintenance (PM) requirements and adjust program based on Return on Investment (ROI). SEMI-  Has the PM Program been balanced with PM schedules to account for seasonality, zones, exercises, ANNUAL mission, overlapping PM requirements, and adjusts the requirement across the entire year.  Ensure all contracted shop support is in line with PM objectives and reflected in TRIRIGA.  Assess PM routing strategy considering shop, asset and building number to ensure maximum ANNUAL efficiency of man-power.  Have plant operations tasks versus PM tasks on plant equipment been finalized. Table 4-3 PM Matured Capability *Note: AFCEC will begin to develop benchmarks, KPIs, and reports for use at installations to measure Operations Flight performance once enough installations have reached a steady- state in TRIRIGA. Installations that have recommendations for measuring Operations Flight performance are requested to submit them here. 4.4 Elements of PM Job Aid Discussion 4.4.1 Section 1: Basic Are all PM requirements completed and loaded into the appropriate SMS for population and interface with TRIRIGA (Pre-IOC TRIRIGA Only)? This must be accomplished prior to IOC, easing the transition of assets requiring PM through the RPIE ACCESS Database and converting PM on assets with an auto-populated annual PM load post IOC. This will significantly reduce key strokes post IOC. Has the data integrity between TRIRIGA updates and the appropriate SMS been verified? Any data entered into the appropriate SMS or TRIRIGA must be cross flowed into the opposite system because no crosswalk currently exists between the two systems. If this does not occur, Integrated Priority List (IPL) and PM management cannot be correctly validated. CEOER should develop and oversee WT closeout and ensure shops know to alert CEOER where significant asset changes occur, e.g., replacement. Page | 27  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Have all PM Job Plans and Work Tasks per shop been reviewed and activated? All assets must have been reviewed, built into Job Plans and activated. If all assets have not been reviewed, built into Job Plans and activated, they are not receiving automated TRIRIGA PM WTs directly sent to the shops. What is the completion percentage of known PM requirements by week/month/year? As the owner of the PM Program, it is imperative to know what the completion percentage is on PM rates within all timelines. PM should never fall below 100% and without dash boarding the data at the CEOE level, it cannot be substantiated. Is 25% or greater of Direct Labor Reporting tied to PM (Work Priority 2A)? It is imperative to know what percentage of direct labor hours is charged to the number one scheduled CE Work Priority of PM. The 25% rule is considered a minimum of direct time charged to PM during the first 2 years of TRIRIGA implementation, ensuring basic coverage of all assets that require PM, receive PM. The third year, dash boarding at the Enterprise level will occur and this number will adjust accordingly. Do all assets requiring PM have a corresponding PMTL associated? All RP/RPIE with assets requiring PM must have a TRIRIGA PM Procedure (PMTL) associated with the job plan. Procedures may be RS Means, AF developed or locally created but will all be in TRIRIGA. Validation must occur or PM may not be able to be performed on all RPIE/RP the base owns. Do all RP/RPIE known assets requiring PM have a PMTL submitted for approval where the installation has any shortfalls? Submit potential candidates for enterprise-wide PM procedures to AFCEC/COO for possible review as a future AF PMTL, especially if there appears to be a conflict between commercial or manufacturer guidance and AF guidance. Have you ensured if an AF-PMTL exists, it overrules RSMeans versions? Ensure where two PMTLs occur on the same asset between RSMeans and AF-PMTLs, the AF PMTL is used. This must occur to ensure compulsory standards to include NFPA, UFC, ETL, etc. are written into the AF PMTLS occur during PM. Have multi-craft/shop PM requirements been synchronized by all shops? Multi-shop PM must be synchronized to ensure efficiencies occur on all assets requiring multi-shop PM or risk the event of incorrect PM occurring on assets that involve life/safety requirements. Have we identified buildings to be demolished and adjusted PM accordingly? It is vital to ensure buildings on the demolition list are accurately assessed, with respect to the facility occupation/mission/disposition status, to ensure correct PM actions are aligned with all, some or no PM visits based on maintenance risk management assessment. All life/safety assets must be maintained to exacting frequencies listed. Deactivation of all PM must occur once the facility is demolished. Page | 28  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Is shop equipment requiring PM, including generators and equipment, tied to a Pseudo location (ALPHA RPUID, e.g., SHOPTOOL1)? The use of pseudo locations enables TRIRIGA preventive maintenance functionality by providing a primary work location for the job plan and associated PM work tasks. The pseudo location ensures that labor and materiel costs are not charged to a facility which could skew overall cost reports. For example, using a pseudo location of SHOPTOOL1 allows any shop to establish PM for necessary tools and prevents the labor and materiel costs from being associated to the CE shop building. Is PM required materiel reviewed, ordered or on hand to perform PM throughout the year? PM is the number two CE Priority overall and the first priority, along with plant operations, for any scheduled work. All materiels required to perform PM must be in stock and be ordered efficiently to ensure no shortfall in materiels occurs. CEOER should facility PM materiel coordination between shops and materiel control on a recurring basis and ensure funds are available when needed. Has training on the process to activate new assets and remove old assets from TRIRIGA occurred? All CEOER personnel must be trained how to accomplish activating new assets and retiring assets records from TRIRIGA to ensure only active asset records are in use and tied to active PM job plans. Are personnel and processes in place to make similar changes to related SMS tools? Is there a backlog of asset activation/deactivation requirements at this time to accomplish? All asset updates should be finalized within 30 days of identification, entered into TRIRIGA and the corresponding SMS database and managed appropriately. This ensures program comprehensive accuracy and ensuring focus on 2A PM work. 4.4.2 Section 2: Developing Are all RPIE/RP assets inventoried? 100% asset inventory on all RPIE/RP must be complete. Without a proper inventory of assets the installation PM program will be considered incomplete and accountability/review on all assets not possible. Have all health and life safety requirements on all assets been determined to ensure inclusion in the PM Program? It is vital to ensure all assets requiring mandated life/safety PM/inspections occur in all shops. Are bases developing local supplemental procedures for use with enterprise wide PMTLs to cover specific needs such as lock-out-tag-out or confined space? Did shops prioritize available man-hours to ensure assets requiring PM have hours available? It is imperative to contain/balance/optimize man-hours per shop to determine the top PM requirements are being accomplished with what man-hours exist to identify shortfalls. Page | 29  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Shops should schedule all possible PM, work priority 2A over corrective and enhancement maintenance, and priority 3 and 4. Have all local supplemental PMTLs been created ensuring PM coverage where applicable? Where local shortfalls occur on a PMTL tied to an asset, ensure localized additions are made to the Job Plan/Work Task and are implemented on all assets under all shops as needed. Has the PM program been validated within the past 12 months in entirety? It is crucial to validate all assets tied to shop hour availability occurs annually. This ensures assets that have PM charged against them still exist, while further validating condition and frequency adjustments of PM on the asset. Has CEOER developed KPIs in relation to CM versus PM? Have core KPIs been developed to ensure proper data management: CM to PM ratios, Emergency to PM ratios, etc.? Without knowing the ratios, it is impossible to determine if the PM Program is effective. 4.4.3 Section 3: Mature Has a risk matrix event occurred on all assets to determine viability of PM requirements? It is imperative to collect and apply the available man-hours per shop to assets requiring PM. The risk matrix aids in selecting where PM occurs and on what assets. A mature program will have documentation showing, by asset/asset class, where any risk was taken by reducing frequencies of PM from the standard enterprise wide PMTLs. Reminder: bases can only deviate from frequencies, not select steps within a PMTL. Has the PM Program been balanced with PM schedules to account for seasonality, zones, exercises, mission, overlapping PM requirements, and adjust the requirement across the entire year? This must occur on all assets throughout the year. These time-factored events must be in place and accounted for to ensure PM is balanced and man-hours are applied correctly. Have we identified all contracted support areas within our shops, and ensured TRIRIGA is updated to reflect this information? CEOE must know what contract support vehicles are used within all shops to augment PM activities. TRIRIGA asset maintenance history must accurately reflect the PM accomplished by contract. Validate contract expenditures versus available man-hours annually to ensure the least amount of contracted 2A work is accomplished. Has the PM program been routed per shop, asset and building number to ensure maximum efficiency of manpower? The routing of PM on assets throughout the installation is an efficiency strategy. PM should be reviewed annually to ensure routing of assets by shop occurs to maximize efficiencies. Have plant operations tasks versus PM tasks on plant equipment been finalized? Plant operations and PM required within plants must be delineated. Charging of time and materiels must be correctly accounted for between plant operations and PM. Page | 30  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook Chapter 5 AMP and Sub-AMP AMPs and Sub-AMPs The typical Operations Engineering Element will manage the AMPs and Sub-AMPs found in Figure 5-1. The AMP and Sub-AMP structure might vary from base to base depending on the infrastructure present and manpower available. A general description of the AMPs and Sub-AMPs can be found in Appendix D. Additionally, a link to the AFCEC Sub-AMP Manager POCs can be found here. CEOE Facilities AMP Transportation Network and Utilities AMP Airfield Pavements (TNAP) *Managed in CEN AMP Sub-AMP Waste/Grounds/Custodial Sub-AMP Sub-AMP Services Electrical Pavements (Service Contracts) Sub-AMP Sub-AMP Sub-AMP Mechanical/HVAC Wastewater/Stormwater Airfield Pavements Systems Sub-AMP Sub-AMP Facilities Interior Utility Potable/Non-potable Systems Water Sub-AMP Mechanical Distribution Figure 5-1 CEOE AMPS and Sub-AMPs AMP and Sub-AMP processes and management are the fundamental basis for performing Asset Management within the Operations Flight and fundamental to how the Operations Flight operates. AMP and Sub-AMP processed drive is how the CE Enterprise determines the worst performing assets and the optimal maintenance/replacement strategy while maximizing labor and fiscal resources. Sub-AMPs provide a voice for the shops and CEOER to drive the operations, maintenance and re-capitalization strategy at their installation. While running a Sub-AMP program is a significant amount of work, it can be summarized by tracking what assets you have; how they are performing; the cost of operating that asset (PM, CM, etc.); and the optimal time to repair, replace or eliminate that asset to achieve the greatest resource efficiencies while executing the mission. A Job Aid to assist in reaching all levels of a Capability is provided here. Page | 31  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 5.1 AMP and Sub-AMP Basic Capability AMP and Sub-AMP programs operating at a Basic Capability will be compliant with AFI 32- 1001 and other 32 series AFIs as well as AFCEC AMP business rules. Units will have a CEOER section established. Units will begin to stand-up and use the Sub-AMP management process in addition to a basic capability to analyze and prioritize work based on manpower availability, basic ROI analysis for CM, and PM. BASIC CAPABILITY  Verify internal shop capacity (man-hours) support identified requirements/direction within MONTHLY corresponding Sub-AMPs.  Ensure Sub-AMP Working Groups convene.  Participate and advocate for Sub-AMP/Activity during AMP and Comprehensive Asset Management Plan (CAMP) Working Groups.  Confirm Corrective Maintenance (CM) cost (including labor and materiel) is reviewed to assist in making operational, maintenance, repair, and/or replacement decisions. QUARTERLY  Confirm Preventive Maintenance (PM) cost (including labor and materiel) is reviewed to assist in making operational, maintenance, repair, and/or replacement decisions.  Identify requirements for appropriate method of execution (R&M, Sustainment, In-House, SABER).  Confirm a process has been developed to track all requirements to ensure consolidation where feasible and de-conflicted with other like requirements (multiple projects in same facility, etc.).  Update meeting and deliverable timelines to align with Construction Tasking Order (CTO) business SEMI- rules and Facility Utilization Board to ensure requirements are identified correctly and make it into ANNUAL the BAMP for appropriate year of execution.  Ensure valid requirements that fall below the cut-line, in their respective execution methods, are ANNUAL captured and transferred to compete for execution in the next FY. Table 5-1 AMP and Sub-AMP Basic Capability Page | 32  Air Force Civil Engineer Operations Engineering Playbook 5.2 AMP and Sub-AMP Developing Capability AMP and Sub-AMP programs operating at a Developing Capability will begin to formalize the processes they use to conduct in-depth analysis of PM and CM. CEOER formalizes integration into shop requirements and prioritization. CEOE will begin to use the AMP and Sub-AMP structure to drive medium-term funding decisions 12-24 months while beginning the integration of SMS tools into maintenance decision making and plans. DEVELOPING CAPABILITY  Requirements and Optimization (CEOER) identifies the asset/infrastructure consuming the most labor for Preventive Maintenance (PM) and Corrective Maintenance (CM).  Confirm CEOER and Sub-AMP managers are validating shop priorities and work requirements to MONTHLY reflect current investment plans and priorities.  Coordinate with CEN to ensure requirements align with Sub-AMP directio