Download version 0.1 of EP 1110-3-6 United States Army Corps of Engineers USACE Technology Transfer Systems.pdf

Download version 0.1 of EP 1110-3-6 United States Army Corps of Engineers USACE Technology Transfer Systems.pdf
CEMP-ET
Department of the Army
EP 1110-3-6
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Engineer Pamphlet
1110-3-6
Washington, DC 20314-1000
Engineering and Design
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF
ENGINEERS (USACE) TECHNOLOGY
TRANSFER SYSTEMS
Distribution Restriction Statement
Approved for public release; distribution is
unlimited.
14 August 1992
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington, DC 20314-1000
CEMP-ET
Pamphlet
No. 1110-3-6
EP 1110-3-6
14 August 1992
Engineering and Design
UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
(USACE) TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER SYSTEMS
1. Purpose. This pamphlet identifies various methods for design
and construction technology transfer available to USACE and other
Army agencies. Technology transfer within USACE is defined as a
system of processes, both formal and informal, that provides a
structured approach for developing, submitting, and achieving
modifications and additions to technical criteria, standards, and
policy. Further, this pamphlet provides references and rationale
for both formal and informal modes of technology transfer. Policy
and procedures for the formal modes of technology transfer are
governed by the documents referenced below.
2. Applicability. This pamphlet is applicable to HQUSACE/OCE
elements, major subordinate commands, districts, laboratories and
field operating activities (FOA) having responsibility for the
design and construction of military facilities. This pamphlet
neither establishes nor modifies existing policy related to
technology transfer within USACE or other Army agencies.
3.
References.
a.
15 USC 3710a et seq..
b.
33 USC 2313.
c.
AR 5-17.
d.
ER 37-345-10.
e.
ER 70-3-9.
f.
ER 415-1-13.
g.
ER 415-3-11
h.
ER 1110-3-109.
i.
ER 1110-345-100.
j.
ER 1110-345-720.
EP 1110-3-6
14 Aug 92
k.
EP 11-1-3.
l.
EP 11-1-4.
m.
EP 70-1-3.
4. General. Authority to establish and modify technical USACE
and Army design and construction criteria, standards, policy, and
associated documents promulgated by Headquarters USACE (HQUSACE)
is coordinated through the HQUSACE technical proponent. As with
all other activities, funding for various aspects of technology
transfer is addressed through the general accounting principles
and policies established in ER 37-345-10, Accounting and
Reporting, Military Activities.
a.
Primarily, HQUSACE technical documents are developed and
implemented to indicate policy, criteria, standards, and guidance
for design and construction of facilities. These technical
documents are in the form of Department of the Army (DA)
Technical Manuals (TMs), Corps of Engineers Guide Specifications
(CEGS), Architectural and Engineering Instructions (AEI) issued
by HQUSACE, DA Standard Facility Designs, and Engineering
Technical Letters (ETLs). These documents are generally developed
in coordination with USACE MSCs, District Commands, Centers of
Expertise, and the private sector.
b.
Except when otherwise directed, the use of such
technical documents is mandatory for design and construction of
Army projects, but is applicable to Air Force, Navy, "HTRW" and
"work for others" projects when so indicated. However, for some
types of projects, such as commercially financed facilities
(CFF), individual project planning, justification, and approval
documentation may specifically exempt a given project from the
mandatory use of some or all USACE technical documents.
5. Methods of Technology Transfer. There are a number of
methods by which technology can be formally or informally
transferred within the Army and USACE. Formal methods
established by DA or HQUSACE to encourage participation in those
processes by HQUSACE, MSC, district commands, and others are
summarized below:
a.
ENG FORM 3078. Recommended Change to Engineering
Documents. ENG FORM 3078 is a major engineering feedback program
vehicle. It is used to recommend changes to documents
promulgated by HQUSACE, such as TMs, guide specifications,
standard and definitive drawings, design guides, and other
2
EP 1110-3-6
14 Aug 92
criteria documents for military construction (see ER 37-345-10,
Design Policy for Military Construction, and ER 1110-345-100,
Specifications). It identifies the document recommended for
change, showing the chain of command for submission; and it
provides problem and recommended solution statements , and
various comments and recommendations of USACE elements in the
approval process. Form may be submitted by any USACE element
through their chain of command to HQUSACE (CEMP-EA). The
submitter should send an advance copy of the completed ENG FORM
to HQUSACE (CEMP-EA) concurrent with submission to the Major
Subordinate Command (division office). In the evaluation
process, each intermediate reviewing echelon is required to
provide an independent evaluation and recommendation on ENG FORM
3078A to the next higher echelon within USACE.
b.
The Army Suggestion Program. This program is sponsored
by DA under the auspices of AR 5-17, The Army Ideas of Excellence
Program. The intent of this program is to encourage DA employees
to recommend improvements in the manner by which the Army does
business. Incentives provided by DA for employees to make
recommendations for improvements suitable for implementation
through this program are listed in AR 5-17. The program permits
DA employees to address technical as well as procedural areas of
Army operations. Where the use of the suggestion program is
considered suitable for the area of concern, the use of DA FORM
1045 (for submitting a suggestion) and DA FORM 2440 (for
evaluating a suggestion) are prescribed by that AR. Note that
there may be an economic incentive for both the suggestor and the
Government to achieve such savings, depending upon the criteria
established for such a determination in AR 5-17. As with ENG
FORM 3078, intermediate reviewing echelons must provide
independent evaluations and recommendations to the next higher
echelon on DA FORM 2440.
c.
Research and Development (R&D). Improvements are often
made to USACE technical policy, standards, criteria, and guidance
through the R&D process. ER 70-3-9, Management and Execution of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Military Research, Development,
Test, and Evaluation (RDTE) Program, provides details on the
responsibilities of all USACE elements in the research and
development arena. Efforts through this process can be initiated
by individuals or user groups, either within or outside USACE,
e.g., MACOM or installation personnel. The process begins with
the determination of the need for an improvement that requires
research and possibly development of a new method, material, or
procedure related to design, construction, or operations and
maintenance of Army facilities. An annual R&D programming
process is sponsored by
3
EP 1110-3-6
14 Aug 92
HQUSACE, involving HQUSACE technical proponents and Research and
Development Directorate personnel, plus laboratory staff members,
in conjunction with a combination of USACE MSC and District
Command, Major Army Command (MACOM), and Army Installation
personnel. This process provides a means for recommending and
confirming the need for new research, and the establishment of a
priority and funding level for each recommended project each
fiscal year. A Mission Area Deficiency Statement (MADS) is
developed to express the need for a research project. Once the
need for a research project is confirmed by laboratory personnel,
working in coordination with the HQUSACE technical proponent and
research directorate personnel, project scope and funding levels
by fiscal year are developed. A technology transfer plan is
developed between the laboratory principal investigator and the
HQUSACE technical proponent to insure that the research product
can be readily absorbed into the USACE criteria and standards
data base once the research is completed. Thus, R&D project
initiators (whether individuals or user groups), technical
proponents and research area personnel can participate in a
cradle-to-grave initiation and development of each research
project. This includes the modification or development of
revised technical policy based upon the results of that research
project. Within the general structure of the USACE R&D program
are the Facilities Engineering Applications Program (FEAP) and
the Construction Productivity Advancement Research (CPAR)
Program. These are briefly described below:
(1) Facilities Engineering Application Program (FEAP): The
purpose of FEAP is to transfer new and emerging technologies from
the research environment directly to users at installations. FEAP
provides for the demonstration of such technologies in the field
to determine whether or not they will work as well in the
operating environment as predicted by research results. Field
results are used to determine potential savings in money or
energy, or their effectiveness in attaining a greater efficiency
of operation than technologies already in place. User guides are
developed as a further result of the hands-on field experience
obtained through FEAP, with the overall goal of permitting
installation users to use the technologies being demonstrated.
FEAP demonstrations are conducted in seven areas, i.e.,
buildings, corrosion, energy, environmental quality, management,
natural resources, and pavements and railroads.
(2) Construction Productivity Advancement Research (CPAR)
Program: The CPAR program resulted from the Water Resources
Development Act of 1988, 33 USC 2313, Section 7; and the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, as amended by
4
EP 1110-3-6
14 Aug 92
15 USC 3710a wt seq. The CPAR program provides a joint-venture
R&D arena, where USACE and the private sector combine resources
to enter into a cost-shared R&D partnership. The private sector
partners can be representatives of the construction industry,
professional societies, state and local governments, academe, and
any other organization interested in construction productivity
and competitiveness. Projects proposed for the CPAR program must
address issues that fall within USACE mission responsibilities,
reflecting needs in four primary areas of USACE interest, i.e.,
planning and design improvement, improved construction site
productivity, advanced materials, and methods of transferring new
or emerging technology into construction industry operations for
commercialization.
d.
Installation Support One-Stop R&D Service. The total
range of technology addressed by the USACE R&D community has been
divided into selected research areas. Information concerning
research either completed or being performed in each such area is
available from a point of contact (POC) specifically designated
for that purpose. EP 70-1-3, Installation Support One-Stop R&D
Service, was developed to make that list of POCs available to
those interested in one or more specific research areas. That EP
provides the reader with listings of the research areas addressed
and the name, telephone number, and organizational element of the
POCs for those areas. Those interested in determining what has
or is being addressed in each research area, needing assistance
in applying research results to specific problem areas, or
believing that there is a need for R&D in a specific area need
only telephone the POC to obtain information on that subject.
Note that such advice is free of charge, unless travel cost or
assistance in excess of two work days of effort is required. In
such cases, assistance will be provided on a reimbursable basis.
e.
Value Engineering. In those instances where contracts
include a Value Engineering clause, the project contractor is
encouraged to submit proposals for alternative methods or
materials used in construction that can result in decreased
construction costs without compromising quality, safety, or other
required performance features of the project.
(1) EP 11-1-3, Value Engineering Officer's Operational
Guide, addresses the functions and responsibilities of USACE
Value Engineering Officers. EP 11-1-4, Value Engineering
Benefits and the Construction Contractor, addresses the value of
the program to the construction industry in general and
descriptive terms, and encourages contractors to assist USACE in
obtaining shared benefits from construction cost savings
resulting from Value Engineering proposals.
5
EP 1110-3-6
14 Aug 92
(2) In essence, where the safety, quality of construction,
or other required performance features of the project will not be
compromised by the use of a construction material or method not
reflected as being acceptable within the terms of a specific
contract, the contractor has the opportunity to propose that a
less costly, alternative material or method be substituted for
that specified. Such proposals are evaluated by the appropriate
USACE elements, and, where approved for use in a specific
project, the cost savings resulting from the substitution, less
the contractor's costs to implement the proposal, are divided
equally between the Government and the contractor. As a result,
there is an economic incentive for both the contractor and the
Government to achieve such savings. Coincidentally, where the use
of a less costly material or method can be applied to other
projects on a broader geographic basis, the use of ENG FORM 3078,
cited above, is an excellent vehicle for advising HQUSACE of the
desirability to incorporate such a new or different material or
method into the USACE criteria system, such as in guide
specifications.
f.
Design and Construction Evaluation Reporting. ER 415-113, Design and Construction Evaluation (DCE), describes the DCE
management and reporting system in place within USACE.
(1) One basic purpose of the DCE management and reporting
system is to acquire feedback from construction projects that can
result in improvements to USACE technical guidance and
construction management systems. This system uses the evaluation
team approach, where team members normally consist of HQUSACE
engineering and construction discipline staff members, often
supplemented by MSC and DC staff members. The team evaluates the
design, construction, and criteria associated with
a number of ongoing construction projects at various sites within
an MSC's geographic boundaries. The results of each DEC team
efforts are reviewed by, among others, subject matter technical
proponents at HQUSACE.
(2) In the case of the technology used in the design and
construction processes for any given project, the team reports
are analyzed to determine whether or not improvements to
technical guidance documents, such as CEGS, are needed as a
result of the data obtained from the team. Since the technical
proponent has the team report at hand along with access to the
reporting team member for additional details, it is possible to
issue page changes to such documents without undue delay. As a
result, the benefits from the DCE reporting system can be high,
since the team visits are made periodically throughout each
fiscal year, without relying on individual initiatives, as do
6
EP 1110-3-6
14 Aug 92
some other methods of obtaining data on improvements to standards
and criteria.
g.
Post Completion/Design Criteria Feedback Inspection. ER
415-3-11, Post Completion Inspection and Design Criteria Feedback
Inspection, addresses another team approach used by USACE in
evaluating the quality of design and construction achieved in the
acquisition of facilities.
(1) Post completion inspections (PCI) are used to identify
deficiencies or defects in the design, construction, materials,
equipment, operability, maintainability, or functional adequacy
of a completed facility that are not discernible until the
projects have been subjected to usage. Such inspections normally
occur approximately six months after occupancy of a facility.
(2) Design criteria feedback inspections (DCFI) are
performed for much the same reasons as post completion
inspections, but normally occur after a facility has been
occupied for two or more years, but before original features have
been obscured by alterations or repairs.
(3) Team constituency of PCI and DCFI includes appropriate
HQUSACE, MSC and DC representatives, plus representatives of the
local Director of Installation and Housing, the user, host and
user Major Army Commands, the Engineering and Housing Support
Center, and other concerned parties.
(4) PCI and DCFI reports are used by appropriate USACE
subject matter proponents to improve design, construction, and
operations and maintenance guidance promulgated by those
proponents for dissemination throughout the Army.
h.
Engineering Improvement Recommendation System (EIRS).
The EIRS is an informal system used to disseminate new or
modified design guidance USACE-wide pending incorporation of such
new or revised guidance in permanent media, such as guide
specifications and technical manuals. The document. used in this
dissemination process is the EIRS Bulletin. EIRS bulletins are
developed by HQUSACE subject matter technical proponents, based
upon descriptive reports and analyses received from other USACE
and Army elements, that indicate a need for improvements in
technical guidance on an expedited basis. EIRS bulletins are
published periodically by HQUSACE, and their frequency of
publication and wide dissemination make them an ideal vehicle for
informing all USACE elements of new guidance in a very timely
manner.
7
EP 1110-3-6
14 Aug 92
i.
Engineering Bulletins (EB). The Engineering Bulletin
process initiated in July 1990 is an informal publication issued
by HQUSACE (CEMP-E). The EB provides a means for sharing
engineering-related information of general interest to the
engineering community, especially USACE engineering personnel.
Items of interest proposed for inclusion in an EB should be
submitted to the HQUSACE technical proponent, or to HQUSACE
(CEMP-EA), if the technical proponent is unknown.
6. Other Formal and Informal Methods of Technology Transfer. In
addition to the formal methods of technology transfer mentioned
above, which are governed by Department of the Army or HQUSACE
guidance, there are a number of less formal and informal
approaches to achieving technology transfer within USACE.
a.
Centers of Expertise. The charter for most centers of
expertise includes the function of acting as the executive agent
for HQUSACE in the development of guidance documents such as
those cited in paragraph 4a, above. In that role, those centers
provide draft versions of TMs, CEGS, and similar documents to
industry as well as various USACE MSCS, District Commands, and
other USACE elements for review and comment during document
development. Centers of expertise are listed in ER 1110-3-109,
Corps-Wide Centers of Expertise Assigned to Divisions and
Districts. Where appropriate, industry forums are held for the
purpose of discussing comments on draft documents provided to
industry. The feedback and comments from all these reviewing
organizations make the transfer of proven new and emerging
technologies a relatively easy process conducted during normal
guidance document development or update activities.
b.
Technical Workshops. Periodic technical workshops, such
as those held at annual or biennial technical disciplinary
conferences, provide a forum for USACE field office personnel to
present new and emerging technologies being used or studied by
their organizational element. These workshops also provide a
venue for USACE field personnel to suggest that HQUSACE examine
new technologies within the structure of more formal settings,
such as by inclusion in the formal R&D program.
Feedback and comments from workshop participants provide HQUSACE
with additional information needed to determine technology
transfer directions in future year programs.
c.
Professional Society and Symposium Participation. As a
result of attending professional society meetings and symposia,
USACE personnel become familiar with new and emerging
technologies being considered within the private sector. Efforts
being expended within the private sector can be applied to USACE
8
EP 1110-3-6
14 Aug 92
mission and needs. Such participation can save scarce resources
that might otherwise be expended on parallel efforts within
USACE, and permit those resources to be used in other areas where
needed.
7. Technology Transfer Continuity. Important to the success of
all technology transfer systems is the continuity between those
who use the systems and HQUSACE technical proponents. No matter
which transfer mode is used, the proposer of the technology and
the HQUSACE technical proponent are key players. When a new
technology is proposed, the HQUSACE technical proponent applies
expertise and technical judgment, and is involved in the decision
on applicability and transfer method to be used. The technical
proponent at HQUSACE is responsible for ensuring that the
appropriate guidance documents are developed or modified to
reflect new technology as it is approved for adoption. The
processes outlined in this pamphlet and the involvement of the
HQUSACE technical proponent are critical to ensure that USACE
policy, standards, criteria, and guidance remain viable, yet
flexible.
8. Distribution. In addition to the normal distribution
afforded Engineering Pamphlets, this EP should be circulated to
all MSC and District Command individuals involved technically
with design and construction for the Army. This information
should also be shared freely with architect-engineer firms and
others who have dealings that involve design and construction
with USACE elements.
FOR THE COMMANDER:
9
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement