PAF4232 - Laserfiche WebLink

New Search

"PMP 101" THE CORPS `PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN' OVERVIEW During the 1980s, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers altered the way they managed and developed water resources projects. The Corps transferred some accountability of water resources projects to non-federal interests, and a formal framework for planning study partnership between the Corps and non-Federal project sponsor(s) was established. The arrival of cost sharing brought about changes within the Corps planning process. Although funding by the Corps of the reconnaissance phase of studies remained at 100 percent federally borne, the costs during the feasibility phase were now to be shared equally between the Corps and project sponsor(s). Prior to entering a study's feasibility phase, the Corps was now required to first enter into a Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) with a project sponsor(s). A more formal approach to project management was necessary once cost sharing was introduced, and the Corps developed guidance on the FCSA and its principal supplement, at that time known as a "Scope of Studies", and later known as a "Project Study Plan". This scope of work is now referred to as a Project Management Plan (PMP). The tasks, milestones, and costs that were associated with the feasibility phase are formalized in the PMP. This differs from pre-cost shared project management, in that all work has to be mutually agreed upon by the Corps and the project sponsors(s) prior to entering the feasibility phase. According to Corps guidance, a PMP is a elan of study that is used to define and manage the development and conduct of a feasibility study. The PMP documents the assumptions, work tasks, products and the level of detail that will be necessary during the feasibility study work. Feasibility phase planning efforts typically are technical, creative, and public: studies determine the existing and the likely future conditions, formulate a range of alternative solutions to address problems and capture opportunities, assess the effects of those alternatives, and, present a clear rationale for the selection of any chosen alternatives -these alternatives are most often plans/projects. Viewed in the context of its attachment to the cost-sharing agreement, and its governing influence on our partnered study, the PMP functions like a set of contract ~ecifications. It is constructed a lot like the sorts of technical or functional specs we are all familiar with (from our partnered work with other public organizations, or our purchases of services from the private sector). Our task in the next few months is to develop together the "specifications' for the ji feasibility phase of study for the Metro Waterways General Investigation (GI).