...competitive advantages," he notes, "a proven performance record and people with the right clearances."

He says he is, of course, mindful of the political winds that swirl around such decisions, but that they don’t drive the process.

Political Realities

“If we go to a firm based on political considerations from the administration, that would be wrong and we don’t do that; but if we also tilt against a firm because of political concerns that someone is going to be coming after us... that’s wrong too.

“You would be fool in a position like mine... to completely ignore the political implications for your decisions…We do political considerations [but] they do not drive our outcome. We start a process and wherever it takes us, it takes us. And we then deal with any political fallout, should there be some,” Strock says.

Another major influence on stateside projects, he says, is President George W. Bush’s commitment to increase the amount of wetlands. “A growing awareness of the importance of environmental sustainablity is influencing the Corps mission,” Strock says. Although he admits there is no “specific execution plan,” he says there is a “a general increase in sensitivity, awareness and a sense of responsibility for environmental ecosystem restoration that can contribute to the President’s goal.

“If you look at what we what are doing in the Florida Everglades, what we propose to do in the upper Mississippi, the Louisiana coastal area, the Missouri river, we are actually increasing the amount of wetlands as a result of some of those projects,” Strock says.

The Corp’s use of mitigation requirements with permits, he adds, is widely misunderstood. He described a recent criticism that the Corps Engineers “is only requiring mitigation on 31% of its permits,” as “nonsense,” because it has things backwards. He says the Corps retains its objective of “no net loss of wetlands,” and uses other measures first, with mitigation as the last resort. A low percentage is an indicator that the mitigation has been avoided through good engineering. He says the Corps’ approach is “avoidance, minimize and then mitigate what you have to.

“It’s absolutely true 69% of our permits do not require mitigation,” he says, and he held that out as a measure of success.

Work Load and Work Force

Two looming issues pose significant challenges to the Corps, he notes. One is the surge of work it faces supporting the ongoing global war on terror, the transformation of the army around an assembly of smaller, more nimble and lethal units that will require base conversions; the pull-back of many units from semi-permanent global deployment to bases at home, and the ongoing winnowing of existing facilities through the base realignment and closing process.

He is also concerned about the demands and stresses on the engineers that the Corps employs. “With the nation at war and with the growing deficit, we are going to feel the pinch across government, and we are feeling the pinch in our civil works program. My concern is that ultimately the nation will return to that [civil works] as a priority, and if they do and we don’t have the human capital there to respond, then we are in trouble.

“So one of the concerns I have is that a flat and therefore declining budget could have an impact on that human capital that really is the value of the Corps of Engineers. That’s why we were able to respond in Iraq and Afghanistan, because of that reservoir of capability we have. If our budget declines, it restricts our ability to hire and retain people.

“I understand why all government agencies are feeling the pinch now; but we have got to work though it.,” Strock says. The Corps strategy is to strive for increased across the entire operation, principally by moving work, rather than people, around.

“We are leveraging the capability by sending work around where the people are, and then shipping it back to where it needs to get executed,” he says. He is quick to add, with a laugh, that “we are not sending work offshore”—with the exception of instances where it goes to places where there are U.S. force concentrations, such as Japan, Korea, Germany, Iraq and Afghanistan.