| Author |
Message |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: robert_w_johnson
Post Number: 123
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 11:07 am: |    |
Federal Training Bill Passes Congress, Becomes Law
The Federal Buildings Personnel Training Act is officially a law. The Senate passed the bill earlier this year, the House of Representatives approved it on December 1 and President Obama signed it into law on December 14.
Key provisions in the Act include:
Identification of core competencies required to perform building related requirements under federal law;
Designation of courses, certifications, degrees or licenses to meet those competencies;
All employees performing identified duties shall demonstrate possession of these competencies;
Development of a recommended curriculum for facility management and operation; and
All requirements under this bill shall apply to any personnel performing duties under contract with a federal agency or department.
Congress and the President have established stringent goals for federal agencies to achieve reductions in energy and water use and greenhouse gas emissions. Agencies also have additional needs related to other high-performance building attributes, including safety and security. Achieving these goals requires personnel engaged in the design, construction, operation and maintenance of federal buildings to have the appropriate skills and training. As both public and private sector buildings become increasingly complex to meet our nation’s energy and environmental goals, personnel with the necessary competencies will be crucial to achieving these goals. The Act will provide agencies with direction on those necessary tools.
The Institute (NIBS), working with over 50 organizations from across the building community, has supported the development and adoption of this legislation. The Act was developed in response to a report to the High-Performance Buildings Caucus identifying key needs within federal agencies to achieve high-performance buildings. The report was prepared by the members of the High-Performance Building Congressional Caucus Coalition (HPBCCC) Executive Committee, which includes the Institute.
“The education and training of personnel engaged in the design, construction and operations of federal buildings is vital to meeting the high-performance requirements established by the President and Congress,” said Institute President Henry L. Green, upon passage of the bill. “This legislation will set the framework for identifying core competencies for both federal employees and contractors who are the stewards of our federal buildings. As [the General Services Administration] GSA and others identify these core competencies, the Institute will continue to be engaged in this important foundation in the achievement of high-performance buildings.”
View the complete language of the new law: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111s3250enr/pdf/BILLS-111s3250enr.pdf. |
Robert W. Johnson
Senior Member
Username: robert_w_johnson
Post Number: 124
Registered: 03-2009
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 11:58 am: | |
"Identification of core competencies required to perform building related requirements under federal law;
Designation of courses, certifications, degrees or licenses to meet those competencies;
All employees performing identified duties shall demonstrate possession of these competencies;"
Note that the law includes courses and certifications. I believe that the CSI CDT education/certificate program is the only education program currently available that covers the basic principles for the design/construction process as well as contract documents. It would require some modification for applicability to federal construction contracts since the CDT program is primarily based on AIA/EJCDC general conditions rather than the FAR. Here is a great opportunity for CSI to work with the federal agencies to customize a CSI education program for federal use to meet the requirements of this new law. This should certainly be a "core competency" for any federal personnel involved in the federal design/construction/maintain process.
The CCS and CCCA education/certification programs can then follow in the same footsteps of federal modifications for federal personnel preparing specifications and performing construction contract administration.
"All requirements under this bill shall apply to any personnel performing duties under contract with a federal agency or department." The above requirements should then be applied to all those under contract to the federal agency for design/construct/maintain responsibilities. It would seem that the CDT and CCCA programs should also apply to contractors doing federal work. This could be huge for CSI in terms of design and construction firms doing federal work requiring their personnel to take the federal version of CSI education/certificate/certification programs. It should also result in a large boost in CSI membership. |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 913
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 12:22 pm: | |
Additionally, a new practice guide can be developed for Federal projects (e.g. "Construction Documents for Federal Projects") that includes three parts: General Construction Documents (for the CDT), Contract Administration (for the CCCA), and Specifications (for the CCS).
Then each of the certification exams can include additional questions to cover the applicable Federal practice guide content. Candidates, when registering for the exams, can identify if they want the Federal exam "supplement." Those passing the exams that include the Federal supplement get a modified credential designation, such as CDT-F,CCCA-F, and CCS-F.
For previously certified individuals who want the Federal designation, they would be required to take only the Federal exam supplement.
Just some thinking out loud...in writing.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Sheldon Wolfe
Senior Member
Username: sheldon_wolfe
Post Number: 460
Registered: 01-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 01:15 pm: | |
Geez, Ron, sounds like you've been drinking the USGBC Kool-Aid. ;-)
The recent proliferation of certifications may be impressive, but the more there are the less they mean. When we were working on the MOP revisions that led to the PRM, we were concerned that someone might propose a certification program for each module, leading to a Certified Facility Manager (CFM) - and a Certified Construction Conceiver (CCC)!
Facility management is not addressed in CSI certifications, but both BOMA or IFMA have certifications, so no point in adding another.
Is there a significant difference in the way federal buildings are designed or built? Is it necessary to modify the CCS or CCCA? Feds do have their own processes, but so do all the state and local government agencies, and specifiers and construction administrators are quite able to adapt to them. The basic principles of design and construction administration, which are addressed in CSI's certification exams, are essentially the same.
Rather than create another set of certifications, modify the CDT to incorporate those things that are different in federal and other agency work. The CCS and CCCA, which require the CDT, would be unaffected.
As for those who already are certified, why not have a grandfather provision as is commonly done for other certifications and licenses?
Also thinking out loud... |
Ronald L. Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
Senior Member
Username: specman
Post Number: 914
Registered: 03-2003
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 03:43 pm: | |
Sheldon, you'll notice I have no LEED-EIEIO after my name, so I definitely don't drink the USGBC Kool-Aid (and never will); but I see your point.
The intent of my suggestion was to allow the CDT, CCCA, and CCS certifications to remain "as is" for those individuals who do not work on Federal projects (which do, by the way, have very different procedures and requirements from those projects using AIA or EJCDC documents). Unlike state or local public projects, Federal projects are constructed nationally and internationally, so a wide audience of potential candidates are readily available.
Ron Geren, AIA, CSI, CCS, CCCA, SCIP
www.specsandcodes.com |
Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS
Senior Member
Username: awhitacre
Post Number: 1090
Registered: 07-2002
| | Posted on Friday, December 31, 2010 - 06:08 pm: | |
I can see arguments for both sides (creating a Federal version or not), so I'll out-loud list these issues:
1) we want the Feds to accept the program as being valid in its own right. There isn't a LEED (Federal) version out there -- USGBC has sold their process as being applicable to all owners and all projects.
2) And, if we're looking for Federal "approval" to show the way to the private sector, we would want to sell the Certifications as being, again, applicable to all building types and all owners, not just the Federal government. The few states that have a requirement for a CDT/CCS do not have a specific "state" version.
3) However, the Feds do think and operate as though their processes are special and not typical, and if it pushes the idea of certification along to give them a Federal Supplement, then I'm all for whatever is necessary to make this a more appealing program for them. I'm curious how that would get written though, and I'm not sure CSI is really the correct group to develop that material. (then again, I'm not sure who would be, either).
and finally 4)I do like the idea of the CDT being modified to include material for Federal work -- no matter if there is a "Federal " version of the CDT or not. No matter what the economic climate, most good sized architectural offices do some federal work, even intermittently -- and covering those procedures simply seems like good professional practice to me. I think adding that information to our exams simply makes the exam candidates better prepared for the entire workplace. |
|
4specs.com Home Page