Military Construction Just Ain't What it Used to Be
Words: Dan KesterFor those of you that work on military construction projects, you should be aware that
facility criteria changes and cost saving measures recently implemented by the
Department of Defense (DoD) may mean that a once reliable source of work could be a
little less so in the future. MCAA recently learned of these policy changes when one
of our members was forced to withdraw their bid on an Army project for a new barracks
because the military's new criteria made the design-build bid using masonry
cost-prohibitive. MCAA has been delving into this issue and is working with others in
the industry to revise the military's engineering approach to new construction. Here's
what we've learned so far:
In May of 1996, Congress passed a law (PL 104-113) that requires all Federal agencies
to use performance-based or design-specific technical standards that are developed or
adapted by voluntary consensus standards bodies for their procurements. Then, in June
of 2000, Major General Milton Hunter, at that time the Deputy Commanding General for
Military Programs, issued an Engineering Circular that eliminated the traditional Type
I and II construction to Type V construction; this permits the use of any construction
material allowed by the Uniform Building Code (UBC), including wood.
In justifying this new policy, the Army claims that advances in fire protection now
make prudent the selection of the construction type to be based on the most economical
system for a given project within the limits of the UBC. The cost problems were mainly
attributed to the previous DoD requirement to use UBC Type I and II non-combustible
construction.
Adding more salt to our wounds, we're told that a new barracks was recently
constructed at Ft. George G. Meade (Maryland) under the new guidelines and the Army is
quite pleased with it. The Army intends to issue a report highlighting the cost
savings at Ft. Meade, holding it as a prime example of why using conventional
construction is the preferred procurement method.
One of the major proponents and, I might add, enforcers, of Type V construction is the
Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, who happens to be a logistics
man, not an engineer. (Therein could lie our biggest problem!) During my discussions
with folks at the Pentagon/Army Corps of Engineers about Type V construction, they
agree with me ? off the record ? that in a post 9/11 environment, living under various
levels of terrorist threats, this construction policy is now outdated, not to mention
wrongheaded, and that I'm preaching to the choir. But as military personnel, they tell
me they have no ability to change the policy and that Type V construction is safe,
given the standoff distance requirements (82 feet/25 meters) contained in DoD's
Minimum Antiterrorism Standards.
The DoD Minimum Antiterrorism Standards are part of the Unified Facilities Criteria
(UFC) which provide planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration and
modernization criteria, and apply to the military departments, defense agencies and
DoD field activities. Standoff distances are essentially controlled perimeters of
varying degrees that, through testing, the military have found limit the impact of
certain blast weights on various types of buildings, in this case military. This is
the minimum standard and would not prevent the damage caused by the attack on the
Pentagon on 9/11.
More importantly, because of the war in Iraq, our military installations may now be
greater targets of terrorist attacks of all kinds. Therefore, it makes no sense
whatsoever that our defense personnel should be expected to live and work in
facilities constructed out of materials that would not only fail to resist any sort of
blast, but make it less likely for them to escape injury or death.
It is now our task to convince the military to look more closely at life cycle costing
and long term durability, not to mention the life safety benefits of Type I and II
housing. Government officials charged with the judicious use of military dollars
should be more cognizant of the benefits of masonry construction, particularly with
respect to operations and maintenance costs.
MCAA is in the process of setting up a meeting with the appropriate personnel within
the Army Corps of Engineers to make that case. Based on the reactions we've gotten
thus far, that will not be easy. But we must do everything that we can to reverse this
developing trend and reclaim our share of this institutional market. If we don't make
any headway with the Pentagon, you can be sure that we will make every effort to
convince those in Congress that it is ill-advised for a country that is now at war to
be perceived as being weak on military safety or anti-terror preparedness.