Norfolk District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Fort Belvoir Community Hospital

2011-09-15T11:36:00.005-04:00

May 2005.

That was the month and year the Norfolk District began the Fort Belvoir Community Hospital construction project. On Aug. 31, ahead of the Sept. 15 Base Realignment and Closure deadline, this state-of-the-art hospital opened its doors to its first patient.

In fact, the first baby was born at FBCH at 4:33 p.m. Aug. 31.

What an accomplishment!

It took our team 46 months to build a hospital that normally takes 110 months to build.

After five years of construction we can see the finish line – the fruits of our labor. Fort Belvoir Community Hospital, or FBCH, is unique - the design integrates concepts of generous exposure to natural light. The site plan also incorporates fully and partially enclosed outdoor courtyards, landscaped with pedestrian paving, low maintenance planting, water features and other materials providing visual and healing comfort.

The Norfolk District has been managing the construction of the state-of-the-art hospital complex -- the hospital, a central energy plant, a new helipad, an ambulance shelter and parking for 3,500 cars.

The exterior includes a terra cotta rain-screen system, which is energy efficient and constructed rapidly (an important factor in an aggressive schedule). The installed rain-screen system is used to clad the exterior of the buildings and has a high insulating value, eliminates indoor mold and mildew, better dissipates heat, and is extremely low maintenance. With this design, 91% of water for landscaping comes from collected rainwater stored in the underground cistern, saving 1.6 million gallons of water a year.

Here are some things you might not know about this amazing facility:

• 200,000 cubic yards of soil were removed to build this hospital, which equals a line of dump trucks 240 miles long?
• It took 85,800 tons of concrete and 5,300 tons of steel to build this hospital
• Two trees were replanted for each tree removed due to construction
• 92% of construction waste was recycled
• There are 5,642 miles of wire and 40 miles of duct within the ceilings, walls, and floors, which equals the distance from Norfolk to Los Angeles ... and back

Evidenced-based Design (Design decisions based on the best available research)
• Light-filled, color-driven signage with “You are Here” campus maps
• Bedside patients control their environment
• Natural, simulated indoor-outdoor nature views promote stress reduction
• Green roofing nature views reduce storm water, temperature spikes
• 60% of site restored with native, adaptive plants
• 4,000 metric tons of CO2 emissions avoided annually

Annual Sustainable Return on Investment
• Energy reduction: $1,284.097
• Water reduction: $474,470
• Greenhouse gas savings: $163,461
• Air Pollutants Savings: $558,039

It’s the teamwork -- the can-do spirit, expertise and dedication -- that made this project successful. We'll always be proud to have been part of the FBCH team!

Building Strong at Joint Base Langley-Eustis

2011-08-19T13:25:00.002-04:00

The Norfolk District’s sustainable design and construction program has just completed two significant new construction projects associated with Base Realignment and Closure 2005 at Joint Base Langley-Eustis. Both were designed and constructed to the U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environment Design, or LEED, Silver rating standards or better. These projects are the new U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, or TRADOC, Headquarters and the Joint Task Force – Civil Support facility.
Our customers are receiving substantial benefits that include significant reductions in energy, water and resource consumption. That translates into a large cost savings over the life span of the new buildings. Most importantly, reducing the demand for resources and energy means scarce resources and dollars are available for other military missions.
Here are a few examples of significant savings for these two projects:

Energy Savings
•BRAC 2005 facilities at Fort Eustis are projected to save 1.14 million kilowatt-hours of electricity and more than 7.2 billion Btu of natural gas each year compared to traditional building practices. That’s enough electricity and gas savings to heat, cool and power 100 homes for a year.
•At current energy costs, BRAC 2005 facilities at Fort Eustis are projected to save $143,000 per year.

Water Savings
•The water-saving designs for BRAC 2005 facilities at Fort Eustis are projected to save 1.1 million gallons of water compared to traditional building practices.
•At current potable water costs, this is the equivalent of more than $6,000 per year in water cost savings.

Use of Recycled and Regional Building Materials
•The value of recycled content used in building materials on these facilities was more than $3.5 million.
•The value of regional building materials (materials that were extracted, harvested, processed, manufactured and transported from within 500 miles of the project site) used on these facilities represents close to a $5 million impact on the regional economy.

Resource Recycling
•The use of aggressive construction waste reduction and recycling programs resulted in the elimination of 13,500 tons of construction waste (the equivalent of more than 1,000 trash trucks) that otherwise would have gone to landfills.

This is just another example of the difference the Corps (and our team at the Norfolk District) makes in our community. For more information about the Joint Base Langley-Eustis projects, visit our website at http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/

Fort Lee Takes the Gold

2011-07-13T11:48:00.007-04:00

The Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to work hard to successfully design, implement and execute a robust program at all levels of project planning design and construction to ensure the armed forces are getting the full value and benefits they deserve. The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure, or BRAC, created a more than $1.2 billion surge in construction at Fort Lee near Richmond, Va.

The mandatory completion deadline for BRAC projects is September 15, 2011 - a date that is a little more than two months away. I am proud to say the projects at Fort Lee have met that deadline. Over 20 construction projects consisting of 40 major facilities include headquarters, dining halls, general and specialized instruction, field training, dormitories (student barracks), retail and athletic complexes, medical and military offices, site infrastructure and bridges, were built.

With that distinction of providing a service to the proud men and women who serve in uniform, also came the first LEED Gold certification for the North Atlantic Division.

The USGBC’s Green Building Certification Institute, or GBCI, awarded the Air Force/Navy Dining Facility with a LEED Gold certification in November 2010. The project was constructed by a service disabled veteran small business owner.

Five more projects are currently on‐track to achieve a LEED Gold certification from GBCI. Additionally, program managers here have created, reviewed and monitored the execution of sustainable design and construction guidelines and compliance documentation across all the BRAC military facilities projects.

The tangible benefits delivered to the armed forces are substantial! While LEED Gold and Silver certified projects are important honors and recognitions of achievement, the armed forces and Norfolk District customers are receiving significant reductions in energy, water, and resource consumption and large cost savings associated with reduced energy demand over the life span of the new buildings. Most importantly, a reduction of demand for resources and energy results in more scarce resources and dollars being available for key military mission requirements.

Some of those energy, water and recycled savings include:

• BRAC 2005 facilities at Fort Lee are projected to save nearly 14 million kilo watt hours of electricity and more than 520,000 Therms (52 Billion BTUs) of natural gas per year than would be the case if traditional building practices were used. It's enough electricity and gas savings to heat, cool and power a large subdivision of 1,200 homes for a year.

• At current energy costs, BRAC 2005 facilities at Fort Lee are projected to save an estimated $1.4 million per year in total energy cost savings.

• BRAC 2005 facilities at Fort Lee are projected to save 30 million gallons of water per year than would be the case if traditional building practices had been used.

• At current potable water costs, this is the equivalent of $150,000 per year in water cost savings.

• The value of recycled content used in building materials on these facilities was nearly $46 million.

• The value of regional building materials (materials that were extracted, harvested, processed, manufactured and transported from within 500 miles of the project site) used on these facilities represents more than a $63 million impact on the regional economy.

• The use of aggressive construction waste reduction and construction waste recycling programs resulted in the elimination of 75,000 tons of construction waste (the equivalent of more than 5,600 trash trucks) that otherwise would have gone to landfills.

Update from the 2011 Environment Virginia Symposium

2011-04-05T16:21:00.002-04:00

At Environment Virginia Symposium 2011 with most of the Water Resources Division and the entire Regulatory Branch. I’m proud of our team – it’s clear they are well respected throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. It’s great to have them in a collaborative forum to share their experience and good ideas. I always learn a lot from them.

The Symposium is off to a great start and our VMI hosts have done a fabulous job again this year!

It was nice to run into our friends at the Virginia Department of Natural Resources and especially Secretary Doug Domenech and Assistant Secretary Anthony Moore.

I look forward to introducing Assistant Secretary Moore tomorrow during the Plenary Session on the Chesapeake Bay and the Virginia Watershed Implementation Plan.

COL Andy Backus

We Are Norfolk District

2011-03-25T14:51:00.010-04:00

It's a question I'm asked a lot -- by family, friends, even by people I meet at the local supermarket. In fact, I suspect we'll hear it many times at upcoming events such as the Environment Virginia Symposium, AirPower Over Hampton Roads, and the Virginia State Fair.

What does the Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers do, exactly?

Truth be told, I can hardly contain my enthusiasm as I launch into the Corps' storied history and explain how the men and women of our district continue the legacy of service to the Commonwealth of Virginia and the nation through programs that range from environmental restoration to military construction.

It's a mission so complex and diverse that there is no easy answer, no 30-second sound bite that ties it all into a neat little package. Yes, it's science and engineering, but it's also real estate and contracting and so much more ...

In formal settings such as civic group meetings and new employee orientation, the answer to the question came as a 45-minute slide presentation that often reduced our fascinating mission to bullets and images that left the audience stifling yawns. Even the most enthusiastic audience only has so much tolerance for slides, right?

So, we made a video.

Now, our story is told by real employees: the people who live and work in your communities, the people who execute these missions every day, the people I'm privileged to lead, the people who serve YOU.

They are the Norfolk District.

I invite you to take a look and leave feedback. You can find the HD version of "We Are Norfolk District" here.

Building Strong

COL Andy Backus

Creating a new era of water resource management

2010-03-12T09:02:00.004-05:00

It all started with a simple question: How can the Norfolk District best deliver enduring and essential water resource solutions through collaboration with partners and stakeholders?

That particular question was posed by none other than the U.S. Army’s Chief of Engineers and Commanding General of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers Lt. Gen. Robert L. "Van" Van Antwerp, when he introduced the Corps’ Campaign Plan.

For the uninitiated, the USACE Campaign Plan is the organization’s guiding document -– a roadmap for establishing our priorities, focusing our transformation initiatives, measuring and guiding our progress, and adapting to the needs of the future.

Under the second goal of that plan, Corps employees are charged with delivering enduring and essential water resource solutions through collaboration with partners and stakeholders –- and that’s precisely what prompted the question.

In truth, most of my senior managers believe the district has a long, successful history of achieving that goal and I agree with them; however, we all agree that there’s room for improving our organizational synergy and collaboration, and establishing a holistic watershed approach.

Let me explain.

The Corps began its water resources program in 1824, when Congress first appropriated money for improving river navigation. This act laid the foundation for the growth of perhaps the largest water resources development agency in the world. Since then, the Corps has been involved in navigation, flood risk management, dam and levee operations and maintenance, hurricane response, coastal protection, supporting inland and port navigation, environmental protection, aquatic ecosystem restoration, water supply and recreation.

Yet, for the long history of accomplishment in these areas, there’s been no single champion for water resources issues within the Norfolk District. Instead, these efforts were traditionally spread amongst two divisions and three branches: the Planning and Policy Branch, the Regulatory Branch and the Operations Branch.

That all changes this spring, when the Norfolk District brings those three branches together under a newly formed Water Resources Division.

On the surface, this may seem like a simple organizational realignment, but the reality is that we’re creating an entirely new community of practice of scientists, engineers, program managers and technical experts focused on water resource management issues.

This group, headed by a senior federal civilian employee on my executive staff, will focus its energies on collaborative, holistic management of the James, Rappahannock, York and Chowan River basins, and the small coastal basins for which Norfolk District is responsible –- a move that affects roughly 60 percent of Virginia’s geography and about 49 percent of its population!

I am excited by this change and look forward to hearing suggestions from our customers, partners and stakeholders on how this new division can better meet their needs.

Building Strong!

COL Andy Backus

USACE Campaign Plan
http://www.usace.army.mil/about/campaignplan/Pages/Home.aspx

Command Climate Survey Feedback #3

2009-11-19T14:35:00.002-05:00

Team:

After a brief delay, I continue to follow up on the command climate survey. Here is feedback on the third most frequently addressed subject that you commented on--IT.

IT issues were the third most prominent issue on your minds with 74 out of 628 comments (11.8%) on this subject. Of the 74 comments, 1 was positively-slanted, 72 were negatively-slanted, and 1 was neutral (general in nature and not specifically positive or negative). Copied below are some of your specific comments regarding this subject:

On the positive side:
1. "ACE-IT provides as best as they can within the limitations of the contract."

My thoughts: I think this comment is right on target. It is important to remember that we have some great ACE-IT employees here in Norfolk who want to be on a winning team and work to do their very best every day. I have personally witnessed their dedication, and I know they will be glad when systemic and contractual issues get resolved so their customers (us) are not only satisfied, but delighted.

On the negative side, two main common themes emerged:

ACE-IT Concerns (45 out of 72 negative comments or 62.5%):

1. "Get rid of ACE-IT. We tried it. It doesn't work. Need to cut our losses and go back to something that does work."
2. "I would like ACE-IT to disappear. I do more work on IT problems than I do my own job."
3. "ACE-IT is a costly disaster which does not provide even basic support, let alone in a timely manner."
4. "Get rid of ACE-IT and go back to in house expertise; was much more efficient."

Hardware/Software/Network Concerns (21 out of 72 negative comments or 29.2%):

1. "Network system/software is a constant source of frustration. On the majority of days, it provides me with less than average ability to accomplish my job in a timely manner. Since my position depends solely on the use of my computer, I find this unacceptable and a waste of good time which computes to government money."
2. "The computer system problems interfere with getting my job done on a regular basis."
3. "Add faster computers to Engineering, so that we can work in our 3D Revit Models with ease and without slow downs."
4. "Problems with scanning documents in-house has been a huge problem."

My thoughts: These messages have been communicated loud and clear, not only to me but also to our entire chain of command up to the USACE Deputy Commanding General (DCG).

I have had a number of conversations regarding the ACE-IT model and IT support with senior leaders around the Corps, including the DCG. As I have said in town halls and other forums, I know that ACE-IT performance issues are being taken very seriously. You may be interested to know that the leadership of ACE-IT was recently transferred to COL Gary Johnston, who is also the commander of USACE’s Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC) in Vicksburg, MS.

I will certainly continue to communicate the issues you have raised to COL Johnston, and I will keep you informed of progress and updates as they are available. In the meantime, I appreciate your patience and cooperation as our national leaders work through these issues.

More to follow ...

My next message will cover your comments on training.

Building Strong!
COL B.

Safety at Gathright Dam

2009-10-02T11:43:00.005-04:00

By now, you’ve undoubtedly read or heard news reports that the Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, is investigating some safety concerns at Gathright Dam in Alleghany County, Va.

The short version is that a team of Corps experts assigned Gathright Dam a Dam Safety Action Classification (DSAC) code of II on Sept. 2, 2009.

This means that Gathright Dam is considered to have unconfirmed (potentially unsafe) issues that merit further study and analysis. This rating is attributed to concerns about possible increased seepage at the toe of the dam, and an undetermined flow rate at the river spring a quarter mile downstream, and potential flow channels through limestone below the spillway during pool events above 1600 feet.

We're confident there is no evidence to suggest an emergency situation exists or is about to occur at Gathright Dam, but we’ve also taken immediate action to minimize risk to public safety and, throughout 2010, we’ll be investigating the three unconfirmed safety issues at Gathright.

I recognize that many of you may have questions or concerns you’d like to address privately or publicly. If you’d like to send in your questions by e-mail, please send them to gathrightsafety@usace.army.mil. If you’d like to share your questions or concerns publicly, please post them here on the blog. Either way, I will ensure you get a response.

For those of you who just want to follow our progress at Gathright Dam, I encourage you to see our dedicated Web page at http://www.nao.usace.army.mil/gathrightsafety.asp. Or, you can stay up-to-date on the latest Gathright Dam developments, by following our Twitter updates (http://www.twitter.com/norfolkdistrict), viewing our Flickr photostream (http://www.flickr.com/photos/armyengineersnorfolk) and checking out our Facebook FanPage (http://www.facebook.com/pages/Norfolk-VA/Norfolk-District-US-Army-Corps-of-Engineers/38798304057).

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and answering your questions on this issue.

Building Strong!

COL Andy Backus

Command Climate Survey Feedback #2

2009-10-01T16:04:00.002-04:00

Team:

Continuing to following up on the command climate survey, here is feedback on the second most frequently addressed subject that you commented on: facilities. (I attached the overall comment breakdown again below for reference.) As with my first feedback on leadership concerns, I will communicate these both by e-mail and on this blog.

Facilities issues were the second most prominent issue on your minds with 108 out of 628 comments (17.2%) on this subject. Of the 108 comments, 28 were positively-slanted, 65 were negatively-slanted, and 15 were neutral (general in nature and not specifically positive or negative). Of these 108 comments, the majority (85%) pertain to the Waterfield Building in Norfolk while the other 15% deal with field sites. Copied below are some of your specific comments regarding this subject area:

On the positive side:
1. "This is a great building to work in -- scenic location, lots of windows, food court, etc."
2. "I like my duty location. Hopefully next year I'll be riding the light rail to work."
3. "LOVE my duty location; appreciate it in all respects. It is magnificent and should be incorporated in our recruitment efforts."
4. "I absolutely love the location of the District HQ. Lots of morale boosters from the location."
5. "The physical location and atmosphere of the District is very tranquil."

My thoughts: We are very fortunate to have the scenery and history of the Ft. Norfolk location for our headquarters, and we also seem to be well positioned to use Norfolk’s new light rail service that is being constructed. We have started using the Waterfield Building with the group photo of our employees in front as the concluding slide to all of our powerpoint briefs and USACE Campaign Plan material – I agree it is a good visual of Campaign Plan Goal #4 (Build and Cultivate a Strong Team) and we will continue to use it in recruitment efforts as comment #3 suggests. With regard to field sites, I did not include an example comment above, but there were several of the “neutral” comments that indicated that field work spaces were adequate for the missions.

On the negative side, three common themes emerged:

Furniture / Workstations:
1. "We don't have enough workspace here. My desk is too narrow; if I want to spread out engineer-scale plans, I have to go to a conference room."
2. "Sterile, no color, no art, no sophisticated display of finished work."
3. "Cramming 2 supervisors into a single 8'x 10' office gets a little tight. Cubicles are too small to look at full size plans."
4. "Outfitting of the field offices is done by scrounging whatever we can find. Very little new furnishings or equipment is provided; we may get district hand-me-downs."
5. "Norfolk District Space Plan - I feel that District may be outgrowing the building. The way the Norfolk District Space Plan is laid out, it appears that the grand scheme is space restrictive and trying to cram too many people into too small a space."

HVAC / Air Flow / Temperature:
1. "The temperature in my work area is always at least 77-85 degrees."
2. "The ventilation and temperature control is awful."
3. "The current ventilation system constantly fails. Some days it smells like the zoo in here."
4. "Seems to be a big humidity problem because our paper curls up very badly making it difficult to copy and bind documents."
5. "I think our trailers are not healthy. Many people have allergy-like symptoms when they come to work and disappear after they are home or gone for the weekend."

Noise:
1. "Noise levels are probably unavoidable in a cubicle situation, but noise around me is distracting and effects productivity."
2. "Office noise (people on the phone, conversations, etc) can be distracting."
3. "The cubes are noisy. It is a combination of people not knowing to use their "inside voices" and just the impossibility of having a good environment in cubeland."
4. "The noise level is very disruptive. When it is suggested that fellow employees keep it down, it is taken as offensive. It is bad enough to have to listen to others as they discuss work related issues but loud people tend to be unaware of how loud they actually are and inconsiderate people do not care that their constant chatter is disruptive and unproductive."
5. "New office furniture and equipment is a start but over-crowding and no walls allows for too much noise."

My thoughts: With respect to the headquarters, we are addressing all of these concerns with the Waterfield Building renovation that is occurring this fall. This is a $5 million project to update our facility for the first time since its original construction over 25 years ago, and will include all new furniture (you may be interested to know that the Waterfield Building was originally outfitted with furniture scheduled for disposal at the Defense Reutilization Management Office (DRMO)—essentially second hand furniture that we have used for the 25+ years in the facility. I’d say we can certainly be proud of our stewardship of the taxpayers’ resources in this case!). The new furniture should significantly address the noise and furniture comments that you submitted. The PAO will be adding some photos of our employees and projects to personalize the renovated facility so it won’t be so sterile as comment #2 suggests.

Other notes: Our logistics/facilities team is also working a backup power solution, which will solve the HVAC problems—I have given them guidance that “band aid solutions are not acceptable” and they are working hard for a permanent solution so our working environment consistently remains comfortable.

With respect to the trailers at the field sites—as I mentioned, most comments on these were neutral. I will be glad to talk about specific concerns when I visit each site, and will certainly help where it makes sense. We have already sent furniture to the Gathright Dam facility to continue to improve conditions there. I have great confidence in our facilities and logistics folks, so don’t hesitate to communicate with them for specific improvements—I know they are also glad to help!

Here is the original Command Climate Survey breakout:

Rank/Subject Count (% of Total Comments)
1. Leadership 397 (63.2%)
2. Facilities 108 (17.2%)
3. IT 74 (11.8%)
4. Training 51 (8.1%)
5. HR 43 (6.8%)
6. Telework 41 (6.5%)
7. EEO 36 (5.7%)
8. CWS 29 (4.6%)
9. Fitness 20 (3.2%)
10. Contracting 13 (2.1%)
11. Financial 7 (1.1%)
12. Logistics 6 (1.0%)
13. Equipment 4 (0.6%)
14. Safety 4 (0.6%)
15. Security 3 (0.5%)
16. Legal 2 (0.3%)
17. PAO 2 (0.3%)
18. Deployment 1 (0.2%)
19. Library 1 (0.2%)
20. N/A 60

My next messages will cover your comments on IT and training.

Building Strong!

COL B.

Command Climate Survey Feedback #1

2009-09-13T21:15:00.003-04:00

Team—I want to take this time to provide feedback on the recent command climate survey in which I asked you to participate.

First, I appreciate all of you that took the time and made the effort to provide input to this survey. Our team submitted an impressive total of 628 comments, and I have read every one of them. Here is a breakdown of the subject areas addressed in your comments listed in order from most number of comments to least. Some of your comments addressed more than one subject area. The last line reflects 60 comments that were very general in nature and did not fit into one of the subject areas.

Rank/Subject -- Count (% of Total Comments)
1. Leadership -- 397 (63.2%)
2. Facilities -- 108 (17.2%)
3. IT -- 74 (11.8%)
4. Training -- 51 (8.1%)
5. HR -- 43 (6.8%)
6. Telework -- 41 (6.5%)
7. EEO -- 36 (5.7%)
8. CWS -- 29 (4.6%)
9. Fitness -- 20 (3.2%)
10. Contracting -- 13 (2.1%)
11. Financial -- 7 (1.1%)
12. Logistics -- 6 (1.0%)
13. Equipment -- 4 (0.6%)
14. Safety -- 4 (0.6%)
15. Security -- 3 (0.5%)
16. Legal -- 2 (0.3%)
17. PAO -- 2 (0.3%)
18. Deployment -- 1 (0.2%)
19. Library -- 1 (0.2%)
20. N/A 60 ----- -----

As you can see, leadership is by far the most prominent issue on your minds, so I will address it first in this message. In the coming weeks, I will send additional messages with feedback on the remaining topic areas in the order above. I will communicate these both by email and on this blog.

I look forward to more comments and dialogue on this feedback, and ask that you use the blog so that everyone can participate in the discussion.

With respect to leadership, you can see that 63% (397 of 628) of the survey comments addressed this area. Of the 397 comments in this area, 73 were positively-slanted, 224 were negatively-slanted, and 100 were neutral, meaning the comments were general in nature or provided suggestions that I could not tell whether the person meant to be positive or negative.

Here are some examples of your comments, along with my thoughts. I will discuss these more in depth with our District leadership and, if your feedback warrants, on my blog.

On the positive side:
1. “I have the privilege of working for the best supervisor in the District ... he is fair, compassionate and cares about his people ... his word is impeccable and sincere”
2. “I've always had great boss’s here at the Corps!”
3. “I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with my immediate supervisor. I feel highly respected, and very much a part of the team. I trust them implicitly.”
4. “Excellent informative supervisor.”

My thoughts: I am pleased to see these comments and many like them. As I mentioned at the town halls, my command philosophy is people want to be on winning teams. Positive command climate, caring leaders, and good communications are the keys to winning teams. Comments like these with descriptive words such as ”cares,” “impeccable word,” “trust,” and “informative” echo my philosophy exactly.

All supervisors should endeavor to get comments/feedback like these from their employees.

On the negative side, some common themes emerged and I attempted to group comments accordingly:

Accountability
1. "As far as rule enforcement goes, rules only apply to those under GS-15."
2. "I want non performers not to be moved forward with us.”
3. "I work, while my partner sleeps ... actually fall's dead asleep in his cubicle, right next to the new boss, who fall asleep himself according to next person over from him. It’s very hard to stay motivated around them …”
4. “More training and support of supervisors is necessary to deal with poor performers, especially a few very clever ones who know how to use the grievance and EEO process to protect themselves against poor ratings and disciplinary action.”
5. “People who understand the system also know how to milk it. Some do. People accountability is not a management strength in this District. Those who will are overloaded, and those who won't stay around anyway and get paid the same or more.

Communications
1. “Information is NOT shared freely beyond the Command and Staff level. This continues to be a problem in the district.”
2. “Information sharing from office to office is extremely lacking! Midline managers have a tendency to not share information with subordinates.”
3. “Would be helpful if my immediate management communicated better and regularly, rather than dealing retroactively with issues as they occur.”
4. “Communication w/Branch boss is not good.”
5. “Top civilian management knows how to parrot the right words and phrases, but have not internalized the message and thus Commander's message gets lost in implementation.”

Workload Management:
1. “The stress level has become amazingly high among my co-workers as well as myself.”
2. “In general, our staff is overworked and under appreciated.”
3. “It's just too much to do, and I feel overwhelmed sometimes. I feel I could do a better job if there WASN'T so much.”
4. “Project execution is taking precedence at the cost of quality. I am constantly trying to prioritize the workload, and do my best with the amount of time given to complete my work. This often results in work that is released without being completed, or without a QC review completed.”
5. “Workload and accountability should always be checked and doubled checked. Huge workload and it all needs to be shouldered equally.”

My thoughts: I appreciate the frank feedback. Again, I point to my command philosophy--positive command climate, caring leaders, and communications are the keys to winning teams. I know that positive command climate includes dealing with poor performers -- hopefully by getting them to improve. I will specifically address this with supervisors in upcoming forums. I believe that 90% of problems, including workload management issues and employee stress, can be traced to ineffective communications. Hopefully messages such as this, my new district blog, and the section "huddles" I have held are a good start toward improving in this area. And, I look forward to the September Café Sup topic, which will be "Taking Care of People." The topic of leadership usually revolves around supervisors, but my experience has been that we all can be good "followers" as well. Communication is a two way street, and it is important that honest, professional feedback flows in both directions.

So please let the dialogue begin! My next message(s) will cover your comments on facilities, IT, and training.

Building Strong!

COL Andy Backus

Welcome!

2009-08-10T13:12:00.000-04:00

Welcome to the Norfolk District blog!

It’s been said that emerging media provides the forums that make up the 21st Century town square, where people exchange ideas and information and debate the hot topics of the day.

I’ve asked for this forum to serve exactly that purpose. Through this site, Norfolk District leaders will join me in sharing our ideas and questions, both great and small, with you: employees, supervisors, retirees, family members, friends, customers, partners and stakeholders.

It’s my goal to create the kind of open, honest dialog that makes the Norfolk District a better place to work and helps us deliver creative, sustainable solutions to our customers, partners and stakeholders.

This is your direct line to me, and I look forward to your comments and feedback.

Colonel Andrew W. Backus, P.E.
District Commander
Norfolk District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers