FY 2004 Performance Management Plan Presentation Conduct Fire Prevention Services

1. FY 2004Performance Management Plan PresentationConduct Fire Prevention Services Team Members: J. P. McCabe, P.E. Fire Marshal, DFM, ORS Samuel A. Denny, P.E. Deputy Fire Marshal, DFM, ORS Robert C. Beller, P.E. CQM Contractor to the DFM, ORS Division of the Fire Marshal (DFM) Security and Emergency Response Program Office of Research Services National Institutes of Health Date: January 14, 2005

2. Table of Contents Main Presentation PMP Template …………………………….……………………… 4 Customer Perspective……………………….…………………… 7 Internal Business Process Perspective………………………… 14 Learning and Growth Perspective……………………………… 21 Financial Perspective…………………………………………..… 27 Conclusions ……………………………………….…….……….. 33

3. Table of Contents (cont.) Appendix ………………….………………………………. 35 Pages 2 and 3 of the PMP template………………………. 36 DoD Fire Inspector Staffing Standard ………………..……. 38

5. Relationship Among Performance Objectives • The DFM’s primary objective is to provide a fire-safe work environment for employees, visitors and patients in all NIH facilities • The DFM also seeks to work within the ORF imposed time restrictions for design reviews, submittal reviews and construction inspections • Other objectives support these objectives as shown in the strategy map to follow

7. Customer Perspective

8. Customer Perspective

9. C1A: Percent of Design Projects Reviewed • The DFM is intimately involved in all large capital projects – during both design review and construction inspection • A review of Building 10 data in FY02 indicated the DFM was only reviewing approximately 33% of projects during design • FY04 data shows no increase in the number of projects sent to the DFM for design review • The NIH Building Permit Process is needed to ensure that the regulatory required design review is implemented for all projects • An Occupancy Permit Process is needed to ensure that the regulatory required pre-occupancy inspection is implemented for all projects

10. Customer Perspective (cont.)

11. Customer Service Scorecard Methodology • Use a multi-method approach to gather data from DFM customers during FY05 • Gather perceptions of the NIH population regarding fire safety and fire prevention by developing a joint Customer Service Scorecard Assessment with DPSM (Summer 2005 time frame) • Design and deliver a joint DFM/DPSM point-of-service survey for ORF Project Officers • Ask them to complete the survey based on the service provided in design reviews and construction inspections by the DFM/DPSM during the course of the past year • Include ORF Project Officers for both capital projects and smaller alteration projects • Design and deliver a joint DFM/DPSM point-of-service survey for ORF Facility Managers • Ask them to complete the survey based on the service provided by the DFM/DPSM during the course of the past year • Will focus initially on only the most significant buildings in terms of size on the NIH Bethesda campus • Interview the Clinical Center Safety Officer to ensure the DFM is providing support as needed (Summer 2005 time frame)

12. Customer PerspectiveWhat actions (initiatives) are planned? • Work with the ORF to ensure all projects are reviewed in design and inspected during construction (a regulatory requirement) by implementation of the Building Permit and Occupancy Permit Processes • Conduct a joint (with DPSM) Customer Service Scorecard survey in FY05 • Conduct a joint (with DPSM) customer survey of the ORF Project Officers and Facility Managers in FY05 • Conduct an interview with the Clinical Center Safety Officer in FY05

13. Customer PerspectiveHardships and Accomplishments Hardships • Attempts to include some fire protection questions in the ORS Scorecard were not successful • Attempts to team with two related ORS functions for separate customer surveys were also unsuccessful • Extreme resource demands for CRC construction inspections prevented independent customer surveys Accomplishments • Obtained concurrence in principle from DPSM to do a combined survey of common ORF customers • The DFM now determines the commitment of funds and prioritization of projects from the Fire Protection & Life Safety B&F Line Item

14. Internal Business Process Perspective

15. Internal Business Process Perspective

16. IB1B – Turnaround Times (Part One)

17. IB1B – Turnaround Times (Part Two)

18. Internal Business Process PerspectiveWhat does the data tell you? • Turnaround times are increasing • % reviewed in 14 days or less held steady for design reviews but decreased for submittal reviews • Adding DFM services for Ft. Detrick will add more design and construction projects • Full implementation of the Building Permit and Occupancy Permit Processes will add even more projects for review in design and inspection during construction

19. Internal Business Process PerspectiveHardships and Accomplishments Hardships • Construction inspection work increased drastically (especially CRC commissioning) • Informal process of flagging design and submittal reviews in excess of 14 days did not increase the percentage completed to the 90% goal Accomplishments • While increasing again in FY04, the average review time remained below 14 days • Commissioning of the CRC fire protection features is largely complete – which will free resources for reviews

20. Internal Business Process PerspectiveWhat actions are planned? • The addition of a 5th contract Fire Protection Engineer in FY05 is projected to accommodate the projected increase in workload due to implementation of the Building Permit and Occupancy Permit Processes • The DFM will add formal measures to flag reviews approaching the 14 day maximum turnaround time limit • Begin the fire hydrant testing program and fire protection water supply analysis in summer FY05

21. Learning and Growth Perspective

22. Learning and Growth Perspective

23. LG1A – Fire Protection Inspector Staffing Levels (Based on 10/04 Data)

24. Learning and Growth PerspectiveWhat does the data tell you? • The DFM is currently understaffed with respect to Fire Protection Inspectors • Several new buildings are coming on line, in particular the new Clinical Research Center • Two current Fire Protection Inspector positions will be vacant in 2005 based on announced retirements and will need to be filled with inspectors under the Fire Protection Inspection Services contract

25. Learning and Growth PerspectiveHardships and Accomplishments Hardships • Creating a performance based contract for fire inspection services proved more difficult than anticipated • A second retirement announcement was made without significant lead time Accomplishments • Scope of work completed

26. Learning and Growth PerspectiveWhat actions are needed? • Initiation of a Fire Protection Inspection Services contract in second quarter of FY05 • The hiring of four contract Fire Protection Inspectors has been budgeted in FY05 • A new program for the DFM (NIH/Ft. Detrick) will result in the need for more fire protection engineering and fire protection inspection personnel resources

27. Financial Perspective

28. Financial Perspective

29. Unit Cost Data and Calculation DS 1 – Engineering Reviews/Inspections$995,000 actual FY04 budget for DS 1263 (design reviews) + 142 (submittal reviews) + 1151 (consultations – includes inspections) = 1556 unitsDS 1 Unit Cost = $639.46 [FY03 - $852.61]DS 2 – Existing Facility Surveys$91,000 actual FY04 budget for DS 29,535,000 sq. ft. = 9,535 units (1000 sq. ft. of building area)DS 2 Unit Cost = $9.54 [FY03 - $9.65] DS 3 - Training$145,000 actual FY04 budget for DS 32,776 employee hours trainedDS 3 Unit Cost = $52.23 [FY03 - $57.56] DS 4 – Fire Safety Policies$0 actual FY04 budget for DS 422 documents developed/reviewedDS 4 Unit Cost = none [no FY03 data]

30. Financial PerspectiveWhat does the data tell you? • Unit cost for DS-1 decreased 25% from FY03 but DFM cannot claim to be more efficient as the change is due to recording more of the work items we do (consultations) – units recorded increased 33% • Unit cost assigned to DS-2 remained flat (decreased 1%) from FY03 but there were no new buildings being inspected • Unit cost assigned to DS-3 remained flat (decreased 9.3%) from FY03 mainly reflecting loss of one fire protection inspector in FY04 • The current CQM Fire Protection Engineering Services contract costs remain competitive with other local fire protection engineering firms

31. Financial PerspectiveHardships and Accomplishments Hardships • Unit cost trends for DS-1 cannot be meaningfully developed until the cost data basis is consistent from year to year, changes in the number of large projects will skew data from one year to the next • DS 4 not added to budget process as expected Accomplishments • DS 4 (Develop fire-safety policies, guidelines and specification for the NIH) was successfully initiated in FY04

32. Financial PerspectiveWhat actions are planned? • Develop unit costs with consistent cost data

33. Conclusions

34. Conclusions from the PMP • Design and submittal review turnaround times increased – largely due to the commissioning of the CRC - and will be monitored more closely [DS 1] • The pilot program for the NIH Building Permit Process was initiated in FY03 but no new projects were added in FY04 [DS 1] • The Building Permit Process has not been expanded as necessary to satisfy regulatory requirements [DS 1] • An Occupancy Permit Process needs to be implemented [DS 1] • A new Fire Protection Inspection Services contract will be initiated in FY05 [DS 2] • The tracking of significant deficiencies documented by the ORF Facility Assessment process and an annual re-prioritization of the Fire Protection & Life Safety B&F Line Item commitments will be initiated in FY05 [DS 2] • An increase of training outreach via the DFM website will be pursued in FY05 [DS 3] • The DFM has taken the responsibility for all fire-safety related policies, guidelines and specifications [DS 4]

35. Appendix Pages 2 and 3 of the PMP template…………………. 36 DoD Fire Inspector Staffing Standard .………………. 38

36. Template Page 2

37. Template Page 3

38. DoD Fire Inspector Staffing Standard