MAJ Jakob C. Bruhl, P.E. OIC, 14th Engineer Detachment 130th

MAJ Jakob C. Bruhl, P.E.
OIC, 14th Engineer Detachment
130th Engineer Brigade
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii
Session: Design and Construction Standards in a Contingency Operation
Joint Engineer Training Conference
Society of American Military Engineers
St. Louis, Missouri
24 May 2012
Thailand
Philippines
Mongolia
Thailand
Hawaii
Structural Stucco
DefenCell
Masonry Standards
Enforcing
Standards
Plumb
and square
IAW designs
Sifting sands …
Safety
Water level –
simple genius
Recognition
Pre‐construction Meeting
Combined
leadership
Planning
Questions?
ROICC Haiti ‐ Humanitarian Assistance Program (HAP) Projects ‐
NAVFAC Southeast
Total of 21 Contracts, 64 Projects, 23 Sites ‐ Total value is over $34.2M
Emergency Operation Centers (EOC) Disaster Relief Warehouse Community Clusters
SCHOOLS
MEDICAL CLINICS
Quality vs. Speed: Tradeoffs in Electrical Expeditionary Construction
Chris Garvin, PE
POWER Engineers
Background
• Current guidance
• Challenges
– Quick, cheap, good…pick 2
– Supply chain
– Workforce knowledge/experience/habits
Professionals: Add Value!
• Engineers, contractors…this means you!
• Bring solutions, not problems
– Don’t be a “Dr. No”
– Risk of marginalization
• Articulate risks…line’s responsibility to decide
• Holistically, is something safer than nothing?
– If you say no, will it happen anyway? Worse?
How did this happen?
How about this?
18
Good enough? Maybe so…
DFAC Transformer
Good enough?
• Consider workmanship (when evaluating existing)
• Consider the impact of delay (for new construction)
• Take action…get something done!
Wrap‐up
• For engineers: – Think about the endstate, not CYA
– Manage expectations
– Specify appropriately for the environment
• For the line: – Understand situational limitations (logistics)
– You can’t get a Cadillac in AFG…(or keep it nice)
– Be prepared for re‐work!
Capt Seth M. Lorimer
375 Civil Engineer Squadron
Scott AFB, Illinois
Session: Design and Construction Standards in a Contingency Operation
Joint Engineer Training Conference
Society of American Military Engineers
St. Louis, Missouri
24 May 2012
CERP
Project Impact
Normal decline due
to Availability Bias,
Sustainment Costs,
etc.
Benefit (+)
CERP Impact
Immediate
project
impact
Promise made
to build project
Liability (-)
Drop resulting
from negative
event relating
to project
Dominating
impact of other
AO events
Current CERP
Process Scope
Timeline
Requirement
Identification
25
Ribbon
Cutting
Ribbon
Cutting
+ Time
Enforce
Standards:
Safety and Construction
27
Construction Oversight Capability/Capacity
Revisit and Learn from Past Projects
Design Competence
Constructability
Sustainability
Austere LOS
Questions?
Future Facilities Criteria
•
Over the past year, the Tri-Service Engineer Board has been developing three new
UFC documents.
–
–
–
•
•
Each of these documents addresses minimal acceptable facility design criteria for
life, safety, and health to protect personnel that use the facilities.
These UFCs establish technical criteria for the following building systems
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
UFC 1-201-01 – Non-Permanent Facilities in Support of Military Operations
UFC 1-201-02 – Assessment of Existing Facilities for Use in Military Operations
UFC 2-202-01 – Host Nation Facilities in Support of Military Operations
Fire protection
Structural integrity
Electrical
Plumbing and mechanical
Water treatment, storage and distribution
Waste water collection and treatment
Telecommunications networks
The technical criteria originate from previously published UFCs, International
Codes, and/or established DoD/Service Policies or Regulations.