...is in charge of the multi-year, estimated $20-billion construction effort, which also will involve construction for other branches of the military.

“What we’re doing in Guam is unprecedented, says Gen. David Bice, a retired Marine Corps general who now heads the Navy’s Joint Guam Program Office. A draft version of the project’s environmental impact statement (EIS) was the largest and most expensive ever produced by the government. NAVFAC now is coping with more than 9,000 comments, including strong concerns from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about impacts on the island’s woefully underdeveloped environmental infrastructure.

While there is some skepticism that the environmental review schedule will stay on track, Bice says the Navy is working “feverishly” to complete a final EIS next month and record of decision in late August that will allow construction to start before the end of this fiscal year. “We will have to make improvements beyond the fence line,” says Bice. “We have known that and planned on that.”

Also planned are $740 million in utility upgrades, to be financed by the Japanese government. “We are working with our Japanese colleagues and local officials on how we’ll address upgrades and expansions to support the relocation. Our goal is not to create social and economic problems on Guam.”

Anticipating that construction, NAVFAC’s Honolulu-based Pacific Command in May awarded to seven joint-venture teams a design-build contract worth up to $4 billion. Winning firms will use the contract to compete for construction tasks (ENR 5/24 p. 17). “Our goal is to execute fiscal 2010 projects in fiscal 2010,” says Bice. “That’s why we set up that contract to release task orders.” Mutual Success

NAVFAC’s embrace of new approaches has pleased many in industry. “It’s been my experience that when contracting with NAVFAC, you are more quickly embraced as part of the �solution-delivery team,’ ” says one veteran contractor. “There is immediate recognition, for the most part, that our mutual success hinges on both parties communicating frequently and being flexible to adapt when site conditions are not what were expected. We’re all treated as professionals and trusted to deliver what we are contracted to do.”

Others point to NAVFAC’s recognition of industry business challenges. “The Navy stands out in projecting workload and how fast they pass that on to industry,” says Patrick A. Burns, vice president of the federal contracting group at Mortenson Construction, Minneapolis, and a retired Air Force general. “NAVFAC puts out a monthly solicitation update on its website that is a big heads-up for contractors to estimate project teams and plan capacity. It’s an outstanding planning tool for them and for us.”

Griffin points to NAVFAC’s recognition of impacts such as bonding pressures on small and large firms. “We spend a lot of time trying to stay current with what’s going on,” he says. “With extremely large projects, we might use phased-bond strategies. With smaller businesses, we looked to keep the project size aligned with their bonding capabilities.”

Others also applaud NAVFAC’s flexibility on its use of building information modeling and its decision not to specify a type of software platform. “We don’t want to make the standard if industry is going in another direction,” says Shear.

But NAVFAC’s decision to keep more design work in-house has some in the contracting community less than thrilled. “With the increase in workload, we have outsourced a larger percentage of that work in the last few years than I would have liked,” says Shear. “We want to grow our core capabilities back.” Adds Gott, “My engineers have a vested interest [regarding in-house design] and are going to worry about my total cost. That’s inbred in our culture now. It wasn’t necessarily before.”

NAVFAC also acknowledges that it has been slow to adopt CM-at-risk-type programs. “We’re going to pilot some contracts using early contractor involvement in the coming year,” says Rear Adm. Christopher Mossey, who succeeded Shear in May as NAVFAC commander.

But some industry participants remain concerned that, even with indoctrination, the new procurement generation in NAVFAC is a different breed. Several industry executives noticed signs of that at a recent Defense Dept. contracting conference, to which industry execs were invited through the American Council of Engineering Companies. “The new crop is smart and good, but there didn’t seem to be as much trust,” says one attendee. NAVFAC’s Griffin acknowledges a “modest increase” in bid protests.

NAVFAC officials and industry executives are optimistic about the command’s new Cornell- and Stanford University-trained leader. They also note his extensive command experience and close ties with its key client, the Marine Corps. “He is very good at this business,” says one industry exec.

“I am all in,” an enthusiastic Mossey told attendees at his May 21 installation.