Engineer presents professional information designed to keep U.S. military and civilian engineers informed of current and emerging developments within their areas of expertise for the purpose of enhancing their professional development.
Issue link: https://engineer.epubxp.com/i/284727
January–April 2014 Engineer 15 If we assume that pay and allowances are set costs and examine a project that would normally cost $1 million, it would be reasonable to assume that direct and indirect labor would account for more than 70 percent of that cost, with the remainder attributed to materials. If an Army construction unit were able to accomplish that project, the results would include— ■ Theoretical savings of $700,000 (less travel and life sup- port costs). ■ Increased readiness for the construction unit. ■ Cost neutrality (or savings) in unit training costs. ■ Satisfaction on the installation served. This approach would always raise questions about what the training actually accomplished, how much the training increased readiness, and how much it saved the government. W ithin the Engineer Regiment, there exist two sep- arate tribes that frequently spin in vastly sepa- rate orbits: the modifed table of organization and equipment unit orbit (which centers around training, mis- sions, and deployments) and the facilities engineering orbit (which centers around directorates of public works [DPWs] and the civil works missions of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [USACE], where the languages spoken include money, contracting, and legal oversight). Net Zero for Train- ing could serve as a bridge between these two tribes. It could form the basis of a mutually benefcial program to take the demand signals of the facilities engineering com- munity and turn them into opportunities to improve the training and readiness of components on the green-suit side of the Engineer Regiment. My last article ("One Regiment: Breaking Down the Stovepipes," Engineer) 1 spoke to the potential of viewing the U.S. Army Installation Command as the Army's seventh Army service component command, meaning that its demand signals could be flled by the U.S. Army Forces Command, National Guard Bureau, and U.S. Army Reserve Command, based on the training objec- tives of commanders. Could this be applicable across the entire spectrum of engineer requirements, leading to train- ing and readiness opportunities and cost savings? N o doubt there are units from all components that interact with their local DPW. This will always be the bread and butter of company commanders and other lead- ers in the construction world. The chal- lenges in making such opportunities happen are usually local in nature. Often, the problems relate to installation construction always taking second place to other missions, such as deployments, combat train- ing center rotations, and other requirements. The sole job of an Air Force installation engineering unit is to provide support to the installation. Why does the Army see things so very differently? One factor may be the reluctance of a DPW to use troop labor due to perceived threats to the civilian or contractor work force. The money for critical pro- grams has long been but what will happen when those funds take a precipitous nosedive? During the past 12 years of war, engineers have consistently practiced the mantra of "no engineers in reserve" while deployed, regularly performing construction and maintenance proj- ects effciently. However, what happens when the engi- neers are back at their stateside installation is vastly dif- ferent. Shouldn't it be the same for stateside and over- seas jobs? A new enhanced-performance round was discussed at a recent council-of-colonels meeting. This new ser- .vice grade ammunition offers many environmental benefts, but it also has a major implication. The ricochet angle created by the impact of the round on a target is much larger than that of current ammunition, creating a safety concern. The challenge is that there is now an unforeseen military construction requirement to modify the protective berms at ranges to make them safe. This would be a great opportunity for a unit to get training in design and horizon- tal construction at low or even no cost to the government. In an era of declining resources, we need to start looking within and see the training opportunities that such challenges cre- ate, rather than immediately hitting our instinctive contrac- tor button. The Way Ahead W hat is needed is a much larger approach to the articulation of requirements (via demand sig- nals) and the programming of funds to complete A Soldier uses a circular saw to cut a block for a bond beam. EN Roth.1.indd 18 3/12/2014 1:30:23 PM