Skip to Main Content
us forest service facilities toolbox

Value Management

Back | Next

Value Management

  • Value Management can help you obtain more effective and efficient facilities. You may even save money by reducing program and acquisition costs. Here's how value management can work for you.

    The new Ashland Ranger District Office is in the
    foreground, with the old office in the background.
    A VA was performed on the office design,
    generating savings of $190,300. Take a look at the
    Ashland RD VA Study Summary for details.


    Click the mailbox icon to contact us for a direct reply OR

    Click the green button below to send an anonymous feedback form.

    • Did we answer your questions?
    • Should we include additional information in this toolbox section?
    • Should we make corrections or additions to this toolbox section?
    • Please let us know. Click on the icon to send us your message.
  • A Value Analysis was performed for the
    Missoula Airtanker Base upgrade in December
    1999, resulting in estimated savings of
    $900,000. Take a look at the Missoula Airtanker
    Base Study Summary
    .

    Value management improves function and reduces costs by exploring titleernative ways to do things or build things.

    Value management is also known as value engineering, value improvement, value assurance, value methodology, and value control.

    Value management is accomplished through a formal study process called value analysis (VA) that produces recommendations for accomplishing the project goals better, faster, or cheaper. Usually, VA is used to improve capital construction projects, but it also can be effectively applied to processes, programming, management systems, services, and organization structure.

    The basic premises behind value analysis are:

    • Nobody can think of everything

    • A knowledgeable team with no vested interest in a project will always find opportunities to accomplish the project goals better, faster, or cheaper.

    The VA study process includes six phases: investigation, analysis, creativity and speculation, evaluation, development, and presentation. You can learn more about the process in Show Me How To Perform a Value Analysis.

    In the Forest Service, the deciding officials choose which of the VA team's recommendations to implement. The most noticeable result of a VA is the initial cost savings, but the improvement in performance often provides a bigger benefit over time. The amount saved by implementing VA team recommendations averages about 12 times the cost of performing a VA. However, in cases where too many decisions are already final or decisionmakers are not willing to consider doing things differently, savings and performance improvement opportunities may be limited.

  • A value analysis of the new Missoula Technology and Development Center office design produced $700,000 in savings. The old office is shown above. The new office, completed under budget, is shown below.

    Value management provides decisionmakers with an independent, objective analysis of a project or program proposal. The formal value management study process, called value analysis (VA), uses a creative, unbiased, multidisciplinary team to recommend changes that reduce costs and improve performance of a project or process.

    Value analysis may be helpful for determining:

    • Whether a facility design meets all the objectives for the project.

    • An optimal balance between low cost and high performance of a water treatment system.

    • How the mechanical, electrical, and structural systems, site and interior configuration, and materials of a proposed design can work together more effectively to optimize life cycle cost effectiveness.

    • How much space in what configuration is really needed to fulfill the function of a building.

    • Whether the proposed design can be modified with little or no initial cost increase to minimize ongoing operations and maintenance costs.

    • The best location or acquisition method for a new structure.

    Conducting a value analysis (VA) can be particularly effective at two stages of a project. During the planning stage, the VA team may provide recommendations concerning size, function, general configuration, structure type, location, reuse of existing structures, or acquisition methods. The team may also provide clarification of issues or identify advantages of several options. In the early design stage, a VA team may provide recommendations for improved or more cost-effective schematic floor plans, space utilization, building shape, building orientation, landscape, or heating, air conditioning, communications, electrical, plumbing, or lighting systems.

    VAs are sometimes performed at a later design stage after most of the major decisions about the project have already been made. Benefits are usually fewer at this point, but the VA team may be able to recommend different materials or inexpensive design changes that can improve the performance or lower the cost of the project. In some cases, recommendations can save more than enough money to pay for significant design changes.

  • The Clearwater National Forest Supervisor's Office is one of several leased offices in the Northern Region that was designed and constructed to meet Forest Service lease specifications.

    Yes. Value management can provide decision makers with an independent, objective analysis of a lease proposal. The formal value management study process, called value analysis (VA), can provide recommendations for leasing more effectively at several stages of the process.

    • A VA can be used effectively during the preliminary project analysis for complex projects to determine whether leasing is the best option. Choosing by advantages may be a better tool for less complex projects. See FSH 7309.11 chapter 23 for more information on preliminary project analysis.

    • A shortened VA process may be helpful in determining the content of the lease prospectus. The lease prospectus is the key source of information for developing program-related lease specifications and for selecting the criteria that will be used in evaluating and ranking lease proposals. It is critically important that the lease prospectus contains all of the important project requirements but doesn't include wording that would unnecessarily limit lease bidders. See FSH 7309.11 chapter 31.31 for more information on leasing prospectuses.

    • Either a VA or choosing by advantages can be used to help evaluate and rank proposals from prospective leasers. Using a formal process can help assure that the best offer is the one accepted. See FSH 7309.11 chapter 31.4 for more information on evaluating and ranking lease proposals.
  • A value analysis team reviewing the Missoula Air Tanker Base.

    First, contact your region or station value management coordinator. The coordinator can help you organize your team, advise you on background information the team will need, and help you set sideboards for the team, if needed.

    Forest Service Manual section 1349.3 and 1349.4 list seven methods to accomplish VA studies and provide guidelines for conducting VA studies based on the type and complexity of the project. Studies can be done with Forest Service personnel, a hired team of outside experts, or a combination of Forest Service and outside experts. Two- to three-day mini VAs may be used for simple projects, but most VAs take a week to complete. Your region or station value management coordinator can help you decide which method will work best for your project.

    The VA Process normally uses a team of about six people. The ideal is for all team members to be trained in VA techniques. However, an expert team leader usually can manage a team that contains a few untrained members. The team should be chosen carefully so that members have a broad range of expertise in technical areas relating to the project. For best results, team members should not have had any significant prior involvement with the project. Forest Service Personnel Trained in Value Analysis and Choosing by Advantages are in every region, the Washington Office, and at some stations. The list linked above shows names, contact information, whether they can lead VA teams, and their areas of expertise. Some private contractors and other agencies also are qualified to conduct VAs.

    Everything the team learns and does during the VA process is recorded in a Value Analysis Study Workbook.

    The VA process has six phases:

    • Investigation—What is the nature of the project? The team will need to interview designers and users, review plans and background documents, and visit the site.

    • Analysis—Which parts of the project have the highest potential to reduce costs or increase performance or both? The team will find the big-ticket items.

    • Speculation—Brainstorming yields new ideas. The team will identify titleernative ways of meeting the primary function(s).

    • Evaluation—The team may use Choosing by Advantages or another method to evaluate the desirability of ideas generated during the speculation phase and identify the best titleernative(s).

    • Development—Fill in some of the details of the best titleernative(s). Conceptual designs, cost estimates, and materials or systems information will be assembled by the team. How will the new idea work? Can the disadvantages be overcome? Why is the new titleernative better than the original design?

    • Presentation—Present findings, titleernatives, and recommendations to the unit and deciding officials. The presentation usually includes a Value Analysis Study Summary, a PowerPoint presentation, and/or some large charts or drawings to illustrate the recommendations. Some examples of completed VAs are available in the Value Analysis Examples section.

    After the VA team presents its findings and recommendations, the deciding officials choose which of the VA team's recommendations to implement. They may choose to implement all or just a few of the recommendations. Forest Service Manual section 1349.04d requires Forest Supervisors, Research Work Unit Leaders, and Experimental Forest Leaders to report all VA study recommendations and the status of implementation of the recommendations to their regions and stations each year. Some regions and stations also require a summary of the deciding official's reasons for implementing or rejecting VA team recommendations.

  • A Value Analysis was performed at the design phase of this project, which resulted in a more efficient warehouse than the original design.

    The purpose of OMB A-94 Circular is to promote efficient resource allocation through well-informed decision-making by the Federal Government. It provides general guidance for conducting benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analyses. It also provides specific guidance on the discount rates to be used in evaluating Federal programs whose benefits and costs are distributed over time. The general guidance from this circular will serve as a checklist of whether an agency has considered and properly detitle with all the elements for sound benefit-cost and cost-effectiveness analyses. By following our FSM and FSH guidance we are probably meeting with requirements of this circular, but an easy way to insure the Circular is followed is to use the 'User's Guide to the Facility Lease, Purchase or Construction Spreadsheet '.

    The guidelines outlined in the OMB Circular A-94 apply to any analysis used to support decisions to initiate, renew, or expand programs or projects which would result in a series of measurable benefits or costs extending for three or more years into the future.

  • FOREST SERVICE

    Northern Region

    Value Analysis Study Summary

    Missoula Airtanker Base Upgrade
    Study Name

    USDA Forest Service—Northern Region
    Organizational Unit

    November 30—December 3, 1999
    Dates of Study


    VALUE ANALYSIS...

    An Organized Method For Evaulating an item, a project, process, or system to achieve the required function(s) at optimum cost.

    INVESTIGATION

    Gathering information, finding out what the project is about.

    ANALYSIS

    Looking for the components that have the highest potential for significant improvement or cost reduction, or both.

    SPECULATION

    Brainstorming titleernative ways to meet the primary function(s).

    EVALUATION

    Identifying the best titleernatives.

    DEVELOPMENT

    Forming complete descriptions of the best titleernatives.

    PRESENTATION

    Presenting findings, titleernatives, and recommendations to management.


    Value Analysis Summary

    Missoula Airtanker Base Upgrade

    VALUE ANALYSIS TEAM
    Name Discipline/Title Unit Phone/IBM Address
    Dale titleer Regional Airtanker Base Specialist R6—Winema NF (541) 883-6853
    dtitleer/r6pnw,winema
    Marcus Anderson Civil Engineer Facilities Group Leader R6—Regional Office (503) 808-2524
    mganders/r6pnw
    William Crane Civil Engineer Assistant Forest Engineer R5—San Bernardino NF (909) 884-6634 x3182
    wcrane/r5,sanbernardino
    Michael Roll Civil Engineer US Army COE—Portland, OR (503) 808-4810
    michael.p.roll@usace.army.mil
    John Steward Civil Engineer Center Manager WO—MTDC (406) 329-3902
    jsteward/wo,mtdc
    Richard Wisehart Civil Engineer Zone Geotechnical Engineer R5—Stanislaus NF (209) 532-3671
    rwisehar/r5,stanislaus

    Results

    This study recommends titleernatives to pad and taxilane configurations that reduce the costs and improve the operational, safety, and environmental efficiency of the airtanker base.

    Financial Aspects of the Study

    Amount %
    Estimated Initial Savings $900,000+ Based on current
    70% estimate
    Estimated Initial Savings Not Calculated Not Calculated

    Value Analysis Summary

    Missoula Airtanker Base Upgrade

    Description of the Present Design

    The Missoula Airtanker Base requires upgrading to meet the safety, environmental, and operational requirements of the new generation of aircraft that will be using the facility. Present aircraft (C130A, DC7) are capable of carrying a maximum of 3,000 gallons of retardant. Future aircraft (C130E) will be capable of carrying 5,000 gallons of retardant.

    The Seattle District of the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) through an Interagency Agreement with the Forest Service is developing the upgrade design. The design utilizes criteria from the Federal Aviation Administration and the Interagency Retardant Base Planning Guide - Fixed and Rotor Wing. Currently the COE design is 70 percent complete.

    The main components of the design are the construction of two new Portland Cement Concrete retardant loading/washdown pads, one new Asphtitle Concrete taxilane, and utilities to support the new pads. Approximately 120,000 square feet of new paved surface is included.

    Also included are two retardant delivery lines and one water supply line to the pads, storm water and wash water runoff collection and treatment, retardant spill containment, taxilane lighting, electrical utility relocation, and demolition of existing improvements at the site as necessary to accomplish the project.


    Value Analysis Summary

    Missoula Airtanker Base Upgrade

    Description of the Proposed Design

    Pavement and utility trenching are the most expensive components of the current design. Design changes that are proposed by the VA Team focus on reducing the required quantities of both of these components. Reconfiguration of the loading pads and taxilanes afford an achievable way to accomplish this objective. Three titleernatives are proposed:

    titleernative A—Utilize minimal width and minimal curve radius taxilanes to access both pads in their currently designed side-by-side location. Unneeded pavement in southwest portion of tanker operation area and in unneeded fillets will be eliminated. Secondary taxilane access to the existing ramp area will not be provided. While this fails to provide a second access to taxiway G for the light aircraft fleet, it does eliminate potential traffic congestion in the tanker operation area.

    Specifics of this titleernative are:

      1. 50' wide structural section taxilane with 12.5' non-structural shoulders.

      2. Side by side loading pads.

      3. Pad drainage collected at edge of pad.

      4. Trench with aircraft capable grate straight line to mixing plant. Lighter capacity grate outside of 50' wide taxilane.

      5. Water, electric, and retardant lines in trench.

      6. Wash down & spill storage: a) Between pads for aircraft spill; b) Inside mix plant for tank spill; or c) Lined basin for all spill containment.

      7. Harden and slope area between pits to collect and control washdown and spill materials and place stands at the North end of this area.

      8. Add subsurface drain between existing taxilane and new shoulder.

    titleernative B1—Relocation of both loading pads out of the center and onto the south side of the tanker operation area shifted towards taxiway Golf. This creates a nose to tail aircraft loading configuration rather than side by side. Utility trenching across the southern taxilane to the center of the project area is eliminated with this configuration. Utility and wash down/spill collection trenching will only be required along the south side of the tanker operation area. Additionally, much of the pavement in the center of the project area is eliminated with only minimal width and minimal curve radius taxilanes needed to access both pads.

    Secondary taxilane access to the existing ramp area will not be provided. While this fails to provide a second access to taxiway Golf for the light aircraft fleet, it increases safety in the tanker operation area by eliminating potential traffic congestion.

    Specifics of this titleernative are:

      1. 50' wide structural section taxilane with 12.5' non-structural shoulders.

      2. Nose-to-tail loading pads.

      3. Pad drainage collected at edge of pad.

      4. Water, electric, and retardant lines in trench.

      5. Wash down & spill storage: a) Between pads for aircraft spill; b) Inside mix plant for tank spill; or c) Lined basin for all spill containment.

      6. Add edge drain between existing taxilane and new shoulder.

    titleernative B2—Relocation of both loading pads out of the center and onto the south side of the tanker operation area shifted away from taxiway Golf. This creates a nose to tail aircraft loading configuration rather than side by side. Utility trenching across the southern taxilane to the center of the project area is eliminated with this configuration. Utility and wash down/spill collection trenching will only be required along the south side of the tanker operation area. Additionally, much of the pavement in the center of the project area is eliminated with only minimal width and minimal curve radius taxilanes needed to access both pads.

    Secondary taxilane access to the existing ramp area will not be provided. While this fails to provide a second access to taxiway Golf for the light aircraft fleet, it increases safety in the tanker operation area by eliminating potential traffic congestion.

    Specifics of this titleernative are:

      1. 50' wide structural section taxilane with 12.5' non-structural shoulders.

      2. Nose-to-tail loading pads.

      3. Pad drainage collected at edge of pad.

      4. Water, electric, and retardant lines in trench.

      5. Wash down & spill storage: a) Between pads for aircraft spill; b) Inside mix plant for tank spill; or c) Lined basin for all spill containment.

      6. Add edge drain between existing taxilane and new shoulder.

    titleernative C—This titleernative is the same configuration as the current design titleernative with the exceptions of using non-structural shoulders and using the minimum dimensions allowed by FAA and still meet minimum clearances for aircraft traffic.

    Specifics of this titleernative are:

      1. 50' wide structural section taxiway with 12.5' non-structural shoulders.

      2. Side by side loading pads.

      3. Pad drainage across taxiway from pad.

      4. Trench with high capacity grate is used to cross the taxiway. Lighter weight grates used in non-aircraft traffic areas.

      5. Water, electric, and retardant lines in trench.

      6. Wash down & spillage on pits is stored in trench.

      7. New taxilane provides access to ramp from taxilane Golf as well as access to loading pits.

    Value Analysis Summary

    Missoula Airtanker Base Upgrade

    Function—Affect Table
    Function Current title title A title B1 title B2 title C
    70% Design Side-By-Side Redesign Nose-To-Tail Closest To Golf Nose-To-Tail Furthest From Golf Current Minimum Dimension
    Position Aircraft (Access 2 pits) 3 3 2.5
    (Conflict w/broken/stored aircraft)
    2
    (Conflict w/broken/stored aircraft)
    3
    Load Aircraft 1
    (people/taxilane conflict)
    2
    (unimpeded
    access to 1 pit)
    3 3 1
    (people/taxilane conflict)1
    Store Aircraft 3
    (5)
    2.5
    (4)
    2.5
    (4)
    2
    (3)
    3
    (5)
    Eliminate Congestion 1.5
    (tanker, light aircraft taxilane)
    3 2
    (some ramp impact)
    1
    (uses space
    on current
    ramp)
    1.5
    (tanker, light
    aircraft taxilane)
    Contain Spills (trench collection, detect leaks) .5
    (wash across taxilane)
    3 3 3 .5
    (wash
    across taxilane)
    Control Retardant (piping, controls) 3 3 3 3 3
    Control Water (Washdown, subdrain runoff) 2
    (missing subdrain)
    3 3 3 2
    (missing subdrain)
    Access Runway 3 3 1
    (utilize existing taxilane)
    1
    (utilize existing taxilane)
    3
    TOTAL SCORE 17 22.5 20 18 17
    1—Okay 2—Good 3—Very Good ( )—Aircraft storage capability    

    Value Analysis Summary

    Missoula Airtanker Base Upgrade

    Other Items Addressed or Discussed as Part of the VA Study:

    Current Cost Estimate: The VA Team had concern with the unit prices and quantities for:

    • Aggregates; $65/CY versus the local installed price of $27/CY.

    • All gratings in estimate are estimated at $102/LF. The estimate for gratings and Unitrench in Porterville Air tanker Base is $95/LF (aircraft), $59/LF (HS20), and $43/LF (light weight).

    • The Team's experience with Unitrench is that it would be significantly less cost than the $277/LF trench cost in the estimate (formed in place).

    • The Team does not feel there is a need for the "trench within a trench" in trench type 3.

    • The Team notes not many air tanker bases attach pipes to trench walls.

    • There appears to be descrepancies between the lengths of the trenchs and the quantity of grating between what is on the plans and what is in the estimate.

    • Pavement Subsurface Drainage: Subsurface drainage needs to remove water that enters the structural section in the new construction and the existing taxilane where the new shoulder is added. All options place the underdrains in the structural section adjacent to the shoulder.

    NATS Findings for Missoula:

    • Rest Pilots: The current design makes no provisions for resting of the pilots. This is a necessary function for the facility. Options include providing 1500SF by new construction ($165,000 at $110/SF), modular construcion ($88,000 at $80/SF), and remodel current space in a building ($30,000 at $20/SF).

    • Access To Runway: i.e. reconstruction of taxiway GOLF (1600LF). Discussion indicated a preference for removal and replacement in cooperation with the County. Nondestruction testing (deflection testing) for taxiway GOLF and the current taxilane can be accomplished for $10,000 to $20,000 to help in the decision making,i.e. install drainage and overlay with selective digouts versus removal and replacement. This is a million dollar decision.

    Future Commercial Crew Loading Area: Discussions indicate a desire to construct a pad for this activity adjacent to taxiway GOLF and between the exisiting taxilane and the new taxilane. Procuring land to locate this pad at the north end of GOLF and away from the taxilane appears to be a more operationally safe and efficient option.

    Lime, Cement, Pozzolan Treatment Of Local Soils: This proven technology for plastic silt/low plasticity clays (the local soils) is not used in the Missoula area. Previous testing on the site soils shows an increase in CBR from 3 untreated to 30 with lime treatment. The small area and the low cost of local aggregate may not make this technology cost effective for the immediate project. The technology may be economically feasible for reconstruction of GOLF, a much larger project.

    Piping:

    • The current design has two 6-inch retardant delivery lines to the pits. One six-inch line would save $7,000 from the current estimate.

    • Reduce cost of retardant delivery line by changing from schedule 40 threaded to carbon steel or PVC. This change would reduce the unit cost from $30/LF to approximately $12/LF and improve the maintainablility and repairability using on site labor.

    Value Analysis Summary

    Missoula Airtanker Base Upgrade

    Recommendations

    All titleernatives will provide the necessary functions at a lower cost than the current design. titleernatives A, B1, and B2 are similar in estimated cost, with an estimated savings of between $900,000 and $1,000,000 based on the current 70% estimate.

    We recommend:

      1. Project decision makers work with a facilitator trained in CBA (Choosing By Advantages) to evaluate the titleernatives and score the Function-Affect Table using the CBA process.

      2. Project representatives work with the project designers to build a new preferred titleernative.

    Value Analysis Summary

    Missoula Airtanker Base Upgrade

    Personnel Interviewed
    Name Discipline/Title Unit Phone/IBM Address
    Dale titleer Regional Airtanker Base Specialist R6—Winema NF (541) 883-6853
    dtitleer/r6pnw,winema
    Marcus Anderson Civil Engineer Facilities Group Leader R6—Regional Office (503) 808-2524
    mganders/r6pnw
    William Crane Civil Engineer Assistant Forest Engineer R5—San Bernardino NF (909) 884-6634 x3182
    wcrane/r5,sanbernardino
    Gary Garthwait Civil Engineer Facilities Group Leader R1—Regional Office (406) 329-3184
    ggarthwait/r1
    Ed Gililland Civil EngineerProgram Leader WO—SDTDC (909) 599-1267
    egilliland/wo,sdtdc
    Joe Hoffman Civil Engineer R1—Lolo NF (406) 329-3750
    jhoffman/r1,lolo
    Dale titleer Regional Airtanker Base Specialist R6—Winema NF (541) 883-6853
    dtitleer/r6pnw,winema
    Marcus Anderson Civil Engineer Facilities Group Leader R6—Regional Office (503) 808-2524
    mganders/r6pnw
    William Crane Civil Engineer Assistant Forest Engineer R5—San Bernardino NF (909) 884-6634 x3182
    wcrane/r5,sanbernardino
    Gary Garthwait Civil Engineer Facilities Group Leader R1—Regional Office (406) 329-3184
    ggarthwait/r1
    Ed Gililland Civil EngineerProgram Leader WO—SDTDC (909) 599-1267
    egilliland/wo,sdtdc
    Joe Hoffman Civil Engineer R1—Lolo NF (406) 329-3750
    jhoffman/r1,lolo
  • Choosing By Advantages (CBA)
    for Value Analysis titleernatives

    December 10, 1999

    70% Design Sude-By-Side Redesign Nose-To-Tail Closest To Golf Nose-To-Tail Furthest From Golf Current Minimum Dimension
    Position Aircraft (# of pits accessible) 3 pits,planes do not receive prop wash 3 pits,planes do not receive prop wash 3 pits,rear plane receives prop wash 3 pits,rear plane receives prop wash 3 pits,planes do not receive prop wash
    Windshields free of oil, 80 more efficient Windshields free of oil, 80 more efficient -0 -0 Windshields free of oil, 80 more efficient
    Load Aircraft Tanker / personnel & Tanker / Lt aircraft conflicts Tanker / personnel conflict @ 1 pit Minimal tanker / personnel conflict Minimal tanker / personnel conflict Tanker / personnel & Tanker / Lt aircraft conflicts
    -0 1 pit clear, no light 50 aircraft 2 pit clear, no light 60 aircraft 2 pit clear, no light 60 aircraft -0
    Store Aircraft(# of aircraft stored) 7 aircraft 6 aircraft 4 aircraft 3 aircraft 7 aircraft
      4 aircraft 50   3 aircraft 45   1 aircraft 5 -0   4 aircraft 50
    Eliminate Congestion Tanker / Lt aircraft conflict   Uses some ramp space Uses most ramp space Tanker / Lt aircraft conflict
    Uses no ramp 40 space Uses no ramp space, no Lt 80 aircraft conflict Uses only some ramp 40 space -0 Uses no ramp 40 space
    Contain Spills (trench collection, detect leaks) Spillage picked up across taxilane Contains small spills Contains small & large spills Contains small & large spills Spillage picked up across taxilane
    -0 Contains small spills 30 Contains all spills 35 Contains all spills 35 -0
    Control Retardant (piping, controls) Not considered in CBA since all five titleernatives are equal in this respect
    Control Water (Washdown, subdrain runoff) Not considered in CBA since all five titleernatives would utilize the subdrain design on page C-7 from the Value Analysis team and are thus equal in this respect
    Access Runway (# of taxilanes) 2 taxilanes 2 taxilanes 1 taxilanes 1 taxilanes 2 taxilanes
    1 taxilane 100 1 taxilane 100 -0 -0 1 taxilane 100
    TOTAL SCORE 270 385 140 95 270

     

    CBA matrix: Attribute  
    Advantage Importance

  • Gear types Code Single wheel 1 Dual wheel 2 Double Dual Tandem 4
    Note: DDT wheel configurations are treated as wide body aircraft i.e. dual tandem at 300,000 lbs.
    Input Values Calculated Values

    Aircraft Wide-body? Retardant Capacity (gallons) Max Takeoff weight MTOW (lbs) Annual Departures Gear Type (code) MTOW used by design (Lbs) Departures of equiv gear Computed wheel Load of aircraft (lbs) Equiv. annual departures of design aircraft Total Retardant (gallons)
    P2V n 2,450 80,000 100 1 80,000 100 38,000 100 245,000
    KC-97 n 3,000 153,000   2 153,000   36,338    
    SP2H n 2,000 67,500   1 67,500   32,063    
    C-130 n 3,000 120,000 100 2 120,000 130 28,500 68 300,000
    PB4Y-2 n 2,000 60,000 10 1 60,000 10 28,500 8 20,000
    DC-7 n 3,000 116,900 10 2 116,900 13 27,764 9 30,000
    P3-A n 3,000 105,000   2 105,000   24,938    
    DC-6 n 2,450 92,200 10 2 92,200 13 21,898 8 24,500
    DC-4 n 2,200 71,200 10 2 71,200 13 16,910 6 22,000
    S-2 n 800 27,000   1 27,000   12,825    
    Air Attack n   5,000 300 1 5,000 300 2,375 5  
    Lead n   3,000 300 1 3,000 300 1,425 4  
    Equivalent annual departures of a P2V
    208

  •   Current Current
    (adj cost)
    titleernative A
    (side-by-side)
    titleernative B1
    (nost-to-tail near G)
    titleernative B2
    (nose-to-tail away G)
    titleernative C
    (current w/min dim)
    Item Unit Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Qty Unit Cost Total Cost Qty Unit Cost Total Cost
    Trenching/Grate                                    
    A/C Feet 725 $277.00 $200,825 725 $277.00 $200,825 90 $95.00 $8,550                 $201,000
    HS20 Feet             355 $59.00 $20,945 495 $59.00 $29,205 495 $59.00 $29,205      
    Light Feet               $43.00     $43.00     $43.00     $43.00  
     
    Pipe                                    
    Ductile Feet 1,160 $36.21 $42,004 1,160 $36.21 $42,004                        
    Carbon Steel Feet             445 $12.00 $5,340 495 $12.00 $5,940 495 $12.00 $5,940 1,160 $36.21 $42,004
     
    Pad Drains SqFt             100 $15.00 $1,500                  
    Sump
    (8,000 gallon)
    Ea             1 $4,000 $4,000 1 $4,000 $4,000 1 $4,000 $4,000      
     
    PCC SqYd 2,222 $76.96 $171,005 2,222 $76.96 $171,005 2,222 $76.96 $171,005 2,222 $76.96 $171,005 2,222 $76.96 $171,005 2,222 $76.96 $171,005
    ACC SqYd 10,260 $57.70 $592,002 10,260 $27.00 $277,020 4,667 $27.00 $126,009 3,033 $27.00 $81,891 2,878 $27.00 $77,706 6,900 $27.00 $186,300
    Shoulder
    (reduced ACC)
    SqYd             1,767 $13.50 $23,855 1,544 $13.50 $20,844 1,350 $13.50 $18,225 2,544 $13.50 $34,344
    Demolition LS     $96,000     $96,000     $96,000     $96,000     $96,000     $96,000
    Electrical Utilities LS     $12,000     $12,000     $12,000     $12,000     $12,000     $12,000
    Civil Utilities LS     $82,000     $82,000     $82,000     $82,000     $82,000     $82,000
     
    Direct Total $1,195,836 $880,854 $551,204 $502,885 $496,081 $824,653
    Total Cost
    (1.42 factor)
    $1,698,087 $1,250,812 $782,709 $714,097 $704,435 $1,171,007
     
    Savings Over Current     $915,378 $983,990 $993,652 $527,080
    Savings Over
    Current Adj
        $468,103 $536,715 $546,377 $79,805

  • Check with your Region or Station Value Management Coordinator for information about Forest Service Value Analysis training. Training is also available from:
  • The Ashland Ranger District Office saved over $152,000 by changing the roof design and siding materials to those recommended by a Value Analysis team
    Forest: Custer
    District: Ashland
    Region: 1

    John Steward, Vancouver Office

    PBS Engineering and Environmental

    SAMI, Systematic Analytic Methods and Innovations

    SAVE Consultant Directory

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

  • Value management is required throughout the Forest Service during the planning and/or design phase for capital investment and acquisition projects costing more than $1 million. It is also required for some capital investment projects that cost less than $1 million and some other types of projects, as explained below. titlehough not required, value management may be used to improve processes, programming, management systems, services, and organization structure.

    Public Law 104-106, Section 4306—Value Engineering for Executive Agencies requires each Federal agency to establish and maintain cost-effective value management procedures and processes.

    OMB circular A-131, Value Engineering requires Federal agencies to use value management for acquisitions and programs worth at least $5 million or a lower threshold identified in the agency's Value Engineering guidelines. Each agency must develop annual plans for using value management that identify in-house and contractor projects, programs, systems, products, etc., to which value management techniques will be applied in the next fiscal year, and the estimated costs of the projects. Net life-cycle cost savings produced by value management must be tracked and reported annually to the Office of Management and Budget. All value management evaluations must include criteria that will achieve environmentally sound and energy-efficient results.

    Forest Service Manual 1349 details the requirements for value management performance and reporting within the Forest Service. Value management is required for road, bridge, facility, dam, visitor center, utility system, and recreation site projects costing more than $1 million. It's also required for high-cost or high-risk service, supply, or acquisition contracts. Value management is encouraged for capital investment projects costing less than $1 million when there is a wide variation in costs or complexity of feasible titleernatives, or when local unit policy or the line officer requires it. If a VA has recently been completed on a very similar project or if there is little opportunity for cost savings or improvement of the basic project function, a VA may not be required. Forest Service Manual 7413.3 requires value management for public hetitleh and pollution control projects estimated to cost more than half a million dollars. Regions 2 and >6 have additional requirements for using value management.

  • CHAPTER 1340 - MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT ADMINISTRATION

    1340.1 - Authority. OMB Circular A-131 (January 1988) and Departmental Regulation DR 5048-1 (July 1989) require Federal Agencies to use Value Analysis approaches to identify and reduce non-essential procurement and program costs. Agency heads are required to establish and improve their use of value analysis programs.

    1340.2 - Objective. The objective of Value Analysis is to improve designs for projects and programs by applying a standard process and method of evaluation. Value Analysis provides management with an independent objective technical review of a project or program proposal.

    1340.3 - Policy. Value Analysis studies are conducted at the direction of Line Officers or Regional Office Staff Directors. There is no project dollar amount for which a Value Analysis is required. Value Analysis studies may be conducted at any time in the life of a project. However, studies conducted during the development/design phases have the best opportunity at improving cost-to-performance relationships.

    1340.4 - Responsibility. Forest Supervisors are delegated the authority to perform value analysis in accordance with this supplement.

    Studies conducted in compliance with this supplement shall:

    • Follow the full, standard Value Analysis procedures as shown in the Regional Field Guide to Value Analysis.

    • Use teams consisting of four to six people.

    • Use a Value Analysis-trained study team leader with at least half the members having received the basic 40-hour Value Analysis training.

    • Use people who have not been, nor are currently, directly involved with the management, planning, or design of the project being studied.

    The results of approved studies may become formal staff recommendations.

    1. Appropriate Use of Value Analysis.

    Managers should consider using Value Analysis for projects or programs that are unusually:

    • COMPLICATED - Projects with multiple components of a diverse nature and inter-relationships. Examples are projects with many and varied resource issues, other-agency cooperation, or multiple complex design features.

    • CONTROVERSIAL - Projects that have a high degree of interest and potentially conflicting resource values or concerns.

    • UNIQUE - Projects that have little-used or new/untried conce pts in design. Managers can use Value Analysis in this case to test the design approach for workability and consistency with the primary project function.

    • EXPENSIVE - Projects that are high cost. Value Analysis can be used to optimize the value of the relationship between life cycle costs and performance.

    • CONCERNING TO MANAGEMENT - Projects that are undefinable as to their concern but are unsettling to management. If management needs or desires a "second opinion" on a given project, Value Analysis can be used very effectively to validate project concepts.

    • BROAD IN APPLICATION - Projects that are significant to Regional or National applications.

    While Value Analysis works best when outputs can be measured and/or costs can be quantified, it is possible to conduct analyses under circumstances of limited quantifiable information. Value Analysis is an appropriate evaluation process for use in the study of projects, programs, organization reviews, or administrative processes.

    Forests and Regional Units are encouraged to apply any or all of the principles of Value Analysis wherever appropriate throughout their operations.

    2. Funding Value Analysis Studies.

    Line Officers may authorize participation of unit employees in the activities of Value Analysis. This includes the authorization of funds for salary, travel, per diem, and training tuition.

    Trained team members are encouraged to seek participation in studies being conducted on other Forests within the region. If team members are participating in studies in their normally assigned functional capacity, it is proper for them to charge to their home unit management code for salary, travel, and per diem costs (this is consistent with "charge-as-worked" principles). Transfer of dollars for team member participation in Value Analysis studies will not normally be made between Forests within the region, provided they fall within the 80-hour guide for detailing employees (see R-6 Supplement to FSH 6509.11g, section 09).

    Where team members/leaders are called in from outside the region, travel and per diem are typically expected to be covered by the unit sponsoring the study. Other costs are negotiable between the sponsoring unit and the other region, agency, or contract individual.

    3. The Regional Coordinator shall:

    • Provide leadership for the Region's use of Value Analysis by identifying appropriate applications, keeping track of studies planned and in progress, monitoring the program's effectiveness, and recommending needed changes in Value Analysis procedures or policy.

    • Coordinate Value Analysis training for the Region.

    • Maintain the Regional Field Guide for Value Analysis.

    • Assist Forests and Regional Units in planning, scheduling, and conducting studies.

    • Maintain the Regional Value Analysis Skills data base with record of trained Value Analysis team members and team leaders by discipline.

    • Prepare annual summary report of Value Analysis program accomplishments in the region including: (1) Number of projects by forest; (2) cost/performance improvements or savings; and, (3) particularly noteworthy good ideas from Value Analysis studies.

    4. Forest Supervisors and Regional Office Directors of programs that meet the criteria for studies (FSM 1340.3) shall:

    • Arrange for Value Analysis training needed by the people in their Unit.

    • Use Value Analysis as appropriate to improve the cost efficiency of their program areas and projects.

    • Identify and select subjects for Value Analysis studies annually.

    • Accept reports of studies they have requested or authorized.

    • Identify and assign a Value Analysis coordinator for their unit.

    • Ensure that follow-up on Value Analysis studies is completed and documented.

    5. Forest and Regional Office Staff Unit Value Analysis Coordinators shall:

    • Assist line and staff officers to identify and select subjects for Value Analysis studies.

    • Work with their line and staff officers to develop a schedule of planned Value Analysis studies before the start of each fiscal year, and forward a copy to the Regional Coordinator.

    • Arrange for team leaders and teams to conduct planned studies.

    • Assist line and staff officers with the followup of studies, and forward copies of Study Summaries from completed studies to the Regional Coordinator.
  • FSM 7309.11, 30

     

    34.21 - Exhibit 01

    Suggested Project Prospectus Format

    1. INTRODUCTION.

      Project Name:

      Unit/Subunit:_________________________/

      Approved:____________________________ Date:

      1. General background information on program and purpose of facility.

      2. Need for facility.

    2. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT.

      Describe the project in terms of the objectives the project is to meet. Because titleernatives are to be evaluated, write the objectives irrespective of specific method of acquisition.

      1. General Description.

      2. Objectives.

      3. General Location Requirements. Based on public service and program support, consider local zoning requirements and employee needs.

      4. Space/Functional Needs.

        1. Organization charts of unit.

        2. Tabular listing of space needs by position, group, type, function, or other descriptors.

        3. Relational/workflow patterns. Use bubble or line diagrams. Summary of space needs and/or staff population may be included in diagrams.

        4. Specific design needs, conditions, space, site or user considerations. Note as applicable:

          1. Architectural.

          2. Structural loading.

          3. Utilities.

          4. Mechanical/electrical.

          5. Pedestrian/vehicle circulation.

          6. Access for persons with disabilities.

          7. Computer Room environment/power supply.

          8. Hazardous materials/activities.

          9. Off-hour access, security.

          10. Storage.

          11. Parking - public/employee.

          12. Eating facilities.

          13. Commercial services needed.

          14. Hotel/motel accommodations.

    3. SUMMARY OF PRELIMINARY PROJECT ANALYSIS.

      Briefly state recommended titleernatives and proposed actions. List titleernatives evaluated and/or refer to the study report for details.

      (Content of the following sections is determined by the selected titleernative and method of acquisition involved. Sufficient data will be provided for design/construct, lease, purchase, or exchange methods.)

    4. PROJECT FUNDING ANALYSIS. (Final prospectus only).

      Provide a statement assigning responsibilities to the program area that is to fund the project. Provide breakdown and rationale for multi-program financial projects (FSM 6510 and FSH 6509.11g, ch. 40).

    5. DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS.

      1. Construction, purchase, or exchange sites.

        1. Site Considerations.

          1. Site development plan.

          2. Visual suitability.

          3. Existing utilities (power, water, wastewater).

          4. Soils, (also possible improperly disposed hazardous wastes).

          5. Climatological data.

          6. Engineering report on water, wastewater systems (existing, feasibility analysis for proposed use).

          7. Historic-cultural analysis related to design.

          8. Vehicular/pedestrian access and circulation.

        2. Design Considerations.

          General.

          b. Architectural.

          c. Structural.

          d. Building code requirements.

          e. Mechanical/electrical requirements.

          f. Energy costs.

          g. Utility connections.

          h. Coordination with local/State building officials.

        3. Specific Considerations.

          1. Map cases.

          2. Office equipment.

          3. Computer equipment.

          4. Displays, information services.

        4. Proposed Method of Construction/Quality Control.

      2. Lease or Lease/Construction Acquisition.

        1. Specific Location Needs.

          1. Program related needs.

          2. Public service/visibility.

        2. Site Needs.

          1. Parking (employee/public).

          2. Lighting.

          3. Security.

          4. Access for persons with disabilities.

          5. Signs, flag pole.

          6. Landscaping.

          7. Vehicle loading/unloading.

        3. Building Needs.

          1. Codes that must be met.

          2. Type of occupancy proposed.

          3. Desired floor plan (new construction only).

          4. Energy conservation.

          5. Exterior finishes desired (new construction).

          6. Interior finishes, floor covering.

          7. Special space requirements (in addition to those in sec. II, para. D).

        4. Services Required.

          1. Custodial.

          2. Maintenance.

          3. Debris/snow removal.

          4. Security.

    6. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES REQUIRED.

      Use this section to describe and designate various design activities to be accomplished by District, Forest, Regional Office/Station technical staff and/or Architectural-Engineering consultants.
  • FSM 7309.11, 20

    21.1 - Planning Considerations. The exhibits in chapter 10, section 11 illustrate the various considerations involved in facility planning. The facilities master plan guides further planning of those facilities to be acquired. A preliminary project analysis aids in determining the best titleernative based on the considerations of location, acquisition method, and cost-effectiveness that best meet management needs.

  • FSM 7309.11, 20

    23.51 - Site or Facility Evaluation Report. The evaluation report provides information about the suitability and adaptability of the site or facility to meet Forest Service needs. It identifies needed improvement, as well as the operation and maintenance costs required to support the proposed activities. The report ensures that the decisionmaker is aware of the scope of long-term cost commitments.

    This evaluation should be used to investigate lease or purchase options as well as the viability of reusing existing Forest Service-owned buildings, especially when significant changes in function or occupancy levels are proposed.

  • FSM 7309.11, 30

    31.31 - Lease Prospectus. A prospectus provides facility needs and a detailed listing of requirements. The lease prospectus is an expansion of the prospectus used in the preliminary project analysis and is tailored to the selected acquisition method. The prospectus is the key source of information for developing program-related specifications and for selecting the criteria used in evaluating and ranking offers. See section 34.21 for suggested contents of a prospectus.

  • FSM 7309.11, 30

    32.1 - Submittal Requirements. In addition to the requirements in FSH 5409.13, submit the following information for all purchases or exchanges involving buildings or facility sites:

    1. Forest/Station Facilities Master Plan.

    2. Preliminary Project Analysis of Proposal.

    32.2 - Purchase titleernative. See FSM 5420 for specific details of purchase procedures. To assist in the development of the purchase proposal:

    1. Conduct the preliminary project analysis (FSM 7312.2) in a manner that satisfies the requirements of FSM 5420.14g and FSH 6409.31, section 104-18.5003. The Lands Staff Officer negotiating the case should secure access to the property for inspection and testing.

      The technical evaluation and viability of a particular proposal is sensitive to these three factors:

      1. Investment (purchase) costs.

      2. Renovation costs required to modify the facility to meet Agency or program needs.

      3. Life-cycle costs.

        If the sum of the costs of these factors exceeds those of titleernative acquisition options available, the titleernative may be dropped. The purchase price generally cannot exceed the fair market value of the property. The Government approved appraisal report estimates the property's value (derived by using a market data approach, cost approach, or income approach). This appraisal does not consider the merits of the property to the Government. Use comparative costs of titleernatives in requesting approval to negotiate above the fair market value. The facility evaluation report chapter 20, section 23.51 shall be used to document the suitability or adaptability of the facility or site for meeting program needs and potential long-term costs. These two reports provide the information for computing life-cycle costs.

        If the findings of investigations of the facility indicate that purchase is unwarranted, the investigator shall alert the line officer. The line officer determines whether to continue, modify the proposed use, or discontinue.

    2. If the purchase titleernative is selected, secure (through Lands Staff) an appraisal of the property for inclusion in the purchase proposal. The Forest Supervisor submits the purchase proposal to the Secretary of Agriculture for approval. Transmit the preliminary project analysis along with other pertinent data (APMR, sec. 104-18.5003).

    3. Begin the development phase after receiving the Secretary's approval of the purchase proposal. The Lands Staff secures the property for the Government. Design and budget activities involving renovation before occupancy may run concurrently if the lead time for renovation or additional construction is short. Budget requests for acquisition funds for the facility should include funds needed for renovation. Renovation includes all major interior and exterior improvements necessary to meet code requirements, accessibility, cost-effectiveness, and functional requirements of the facility. Base budget estimates on preliminary designs.

    4. Secure original drawings, specifications, as-built drawings, and other pertinent facility records through the purchase contract, if possible, to aid in the design of renovation work and management of the facility.

    5. Begin renovation work only after the title is conveyed to the Government.
  • FSM 7309.11, 30

    31.4 - Evaluation and Ranking. The leasing officer must have access to considerable information to ensure a sound basis for negotiation. Evaluate and rank each offer according to the ability of the space to meet stated requirements, quality of space or facilities, and cost-effectiveness.

    Technical evaluation normally involves onsite inspections, review of drawings and specifications, and analysis of proposals. Request clarifying information through the leasing officer.

    If considered cost-effective to the Government, inform the leasing officer of suggested changes to improve suitability or quality, or to reduce operating investment or other costs in offered facilities. Describe these changes in performance terms and provide cost-benefit estimates.

    Note improvements required to meet standards. Usually, all requirements are mandatory or at least highly desirable. There may be circumstances when the leasing officer waives or reduces mandatory requirements. Make appropriate adjustments in the evaluation process to treat these waivers uniformly among offers.

    Contracting officers rank the offers as described in FSH 6409.12.

  • FSM 7309.11, 30

    31.31 - Lease Prospectus. A prospectus provides facility needs and a detailed listing of requirements. The lease prospectus is an expansion of the prospectus used in the preliminary project analysis and is tailored to the selected acquisition method. The prospectus is the key source of information for developing program-related specifications and for selecting the criteria used in evaluating and ranking offers. See section 34.21 for suggested contents of a prospectus.

Contact Us