Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byIan van der Pool MFM CFM
Strategy and Facility Management
The document discusses the evolution and challenges of Kandahar Airfield (KAF) from its establishment in the 1960s through various military transitions, highlighting the ongoing issues in control, finance, and procurement management. It outlines KAF's growth into a large operational base by 2010, including its population and logistical demands, while also addressing the complexities faced by the stakeholder nations involved. Key concerns include the effectiveness of contractor management, quality of services, and funding responsiveness amidst shifting operational priorities.
Strategy and Facility Management
- 1.
- 4. Kandahar Airfield: FM Strategygone haywire Breda University of Applied Sciences Ian van der Pool MFM
- 5. Programme • History KAF •Then - 2007 • Transition: OEF -> ISAF – control – finance – procurement & contractor management – future • ‘Now’ – 2010 – BOHICA FM Strategy gone haywire – 26 september 2011
- 6. Taliban Last Stand(TLS) • History KAF • Then - 2007 • Transition: OEF -> ISAF – control – finance – procurement & contractor management – future • ‘Now’ – 2010 – BOHICA FM Strategy gone haywire – 26 september 2011
- 9. Kandahar Airfield • builtwith US aid during sixties • damaged during war with USSR 1979-1989 • 9/11 War on Terrorism • damaged during OEF, october 2001 • main US base till 1/8/2007
- 10.
- 11.
- 12.
- 13. ‘Doe eens evennormaal man!’
- 14. Strategy: OEF ->ISAF • From US led to NATO led • Issues • control • finance • procurement & contractor management • future developments KAF
- 15. Control • rule oflaw • military vs. civilians KAF Tenants Charter ‘gentlemen’s agreement’
- 16. Finance •NATO common funded stakeholders •Stakeholder Nations United States United Kingdom Canada the Netherlands (6,5 M€) (France 2008)
- 17. Canada France Netherlands United Kingdom United States of America JFCBS NATO 5Stakeholder Nations Sponsor embedded nations for NATO payment purposes and information flow COMKAF leads Stakeholders through a Senior Council of their National Reps Some nations are not sponsored and have individual payment arrangements with NAMSA New Zealand Australia Bulgaria Belgium Estonia Czech Rep Romania Germany Lithuania Denmark Poland Slovakia UAE Rep of Macedonia Mongolia Jordan Jordan
- 18. Procurement & Contractor management •‘cost plus’ -> ‘fixed price’ • NAMSA in new role • COMKAF as demand manager • service levels? • role sponsoring nations
- 19. Future developments KAF estimatedgrowth: max. 12.500
- 20. 2010 KAF is acity in its own right. At around 25,000 inhabitants, it is comparable in density to Hermosa Beach, California; Warwick, England; Voorschoten, The Netherlands, or Bolton, Ontario • • • • • • • • • • • peak 30.000 pax > 250.000 meals/week > 42 nationalities > 10 million liter nonpotable water/week > 4.000 contractors > 200 a/c > 750 a/c movements/day > 70M€ mil. Budget/year > 1.500 Afghans/day > 500 trucks / day > 650 km² GDA
- 21. Issues • Food • Camputilities (waste water treatment & waste mngt • Water production and distribution • Contractor provided Construction Capability • Over ambitious project delivery programme / Lack of prioritisation (all Priority 1) • Funding responsiveness to meet urgent demands or changing operational priorities • Quality -Increasingly important to user and funder • Cost –Nations’ funding fatigue
- 25.
- 26.