Unified Facilities Guide Specifications (UFGS)

Working Group Meeting

May 2-3, 2006

Kennedy Space Center, Florida

View Minutes in PDF

Attendees:

Frank Der, NASA

Steven P. Freitas, USACE (Sacramento)

Pete Rossbach, USACE (Washington)

Sheron Belcher, USACE (Huntsville)

Carl Kersten, NAVFAC (Norfolk)

Sherri McMillion, NAVFAC (Norfolk)

Pat Robinson, InDyne

Jim Whitehead, InDyne

Cheryl Fitz-Simon, InDyne

Rick Hatcher, SGS

Richard Hungate, SGS

Introduction

Carl Kersten , NAVFAC

• Opened the meeting by welcoming everyone.

Meeting Objectives

	Direction and Future of UFGS Program
	Requirements for Fifth Level Numbering
	Agreement on Reference Identifiers (RID)
	Discrepancy List MasterFormat 2004
	UFGS Master Template
	CSI Proposed Section Format/Page Format
	UFGS Index on WBDG
	Rotation of Database Release Processing
	Using CMS For Reviewing, Tracking and Submitting UFGS Database
	Revisions to UFGS 1-300-02
	Revisions to MIL-STD 3007
	CSI MF2004 PowerPoint Presentation For Distribution on WBDG
	Identify UFGS Requiring Unifications After UFGS Assignment To NASA
	Unification of Division 1 assignments from November 2005 Meeting
	Division 1 Regional Requirments
	Miscellaneous Items

Subject 1: Direction and Future of UFGS Program

	The ESEP Coordinating Panel inquired whether the funding and maintenance for the UFGS is still required since the implementation of Design Build.
	Army and NASA responded that the UFGS is still required since they are not going to be fully Design Build.
	Carl Kersten stated the ESEP has not questioned this since, but felt it should be brought before the Working Group to see if a response would be necessary.
	Steve Freitas stated Design Build should be unified and maintained in SpecsIntact as part of the UFGS.
	The purpose of the UFGS is to save money and effort across all agencies, therefore Design Build should also be apart of the UFGS system.
	Army, Navy and Air Force will be meeting to discuss unifying the RFP for the Design Build effort.
	Steve Freitas stated that Air Combat Command (ACC) tracked the traditional construction contracts vs. Design Build and found the Design Build is costing more money and effort than the traditional construction contract.
	We need to focus on getting the Design Build specifications back where they belong.
	A separate Design Build group maintains these specifications for DOD.
	At present, the Design Build specifications are accessible on the WBDG web site in MS Word format, but maintained by NAVFAC.
	If Design Build Specifications become unified there would still need to be two separate databases, one for UFGS and one for Design Build.

ACTIONS

	Carl Kersten will provide Steve Freitas with the Format required for submitting a response to the ESEP Coordinating Panel.
	Steve Freitas will write the advantages of using UFGS and send to Carl Kersten for distribution.

Subject 2: Requirements for Fifth Level Numbering

	The Fifth level is used to identify the preparing activity until the specification has been unified.
	Steve Freitas stated the Corps Specification Steering Committee meeting revealed that some districts were using the fourth level for designating the agency.
	We have a potential for as many as 56 USACE Districts, NAVFAC has 19 Divisions and NASA has 12 Centers.
	When the specification is pulled into a Job, the fifth level number should be removed.
		This is not an automatic feature; sections must be manually renamed at the job level.
	Jim Whitehead stated it would be a minor change to add an alpha designation to the fifth level but a much bigger effort to extend the fifth level to a larger amount of digits.
		Steve Freitas stated if we could use the alpha characters, and he had to wait a matter of 6 months he had no problem doing so.
	Army is in the process of publishing a bulletin to provide guidance to USACE on the proper use of the fifth level
		Steve Freitas stated he will be publishing his document with number design