ASACW Launches “Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork” Initiative

Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam R. Telle on Feb. 23 announced a 27-point reform initiative for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works program, titled “Building Infrastructure, Not Paperwork,” outlining changes across project delivery, permitting, budgeting discipline, transparency, and prioritization.

According to the document, the initiative is organized around five primary areas of effort: maximizing the ability to deliver national infrastructure, cutting red tape, focusing on efficiency, increasing transparency and accountability, and prioritization of core missions that serve the national interest. The first several pages outline the initiative at a high level, including core messages and featured examples. Beginning on page 8, the document provides a more detailed list of the 27 specific change initiatives grouped under each area of effort.

The initiative states that its overall objective is to accelerate project delivery, reduce permitting timelines, attack waste, and strategically direct resources toward priority water resources projects while minimizing non-core efforts.

Maximizing the Ability to Deliver National Infrastructure

This section addresses project delivery from study through construction and includes changes intended to move projects into engineering and construction more quickly.

Initiatives include contracting out new feasibility studies, expanding use of Non-Federal Interest study and project delivery authorities, improving design maturity prior to construction, and evaluating the effectiveness of project labor agreements. These initiatives affect how studies are initiated, how design thresholds are reached prior to construction, and how delivery pathways are selected.

The section also includes Increasing Dredging Capacity: Smarter Contracting. Identified issues include rising dredging costs and localized contract structures. The document references concerns about non-awardable bids exceeding government estimates. Industry representatives note that the Corps reported zero non-awardable dredging bids last year following improvements in scheduling and internal cost estimating practices.

Proposed actions include elevating dredging contract visibility to Headquarters, evaluating alternative contract structures including regional approaches, improving liquidated damages calculations, leveraging centers of expertise to standardize estimates and specifications, and coordinating contract actions enterprise-wide. Stakeholders indicate that environmental work windows, contracting timing, and budget predictability remain significant drivers of dredging cost and availability, and further implementation detail will determine how those factors are addressed.

Cutting Red Tape

This area focuses on regulatory and permitting reforms intended to produce faster, clearer, and more consistent decisions needed to advance infrastructure.

A central component is leveraging technology in permitting, including development of geospatial tools to reduce subjectivity in Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations for “Waters of the U.S.” The framework contemplates creating mapping layers to improve consistency in identifying areas subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, along with continued investment in the Regulatory Request System to streamline the permitting process.

Other initiatives in this category include expanding general permits, increasing hydroelectric output from USACE facilities, improving mitigation banking for navigation projects, and expanding environmental windows.

Focus on Efficiency

This section addresses internal alignment and communication discipline across Headquarters, divisions, and districts.

The consistency in communication on the President’s Budget initiative identifies advocacy for programs or capabilities not included in the President’s Budget as a concern. Proposed measures include prohibiting employees from advocating for programs not funded in the President’s Budget, requiring communications to clearly state funding status, and mandating approval for release of budget formulation materials. This affects how districts engage externally regarding funding levels and capability needs.

Other initiatives include harmonizing enterprise functions and refocusing districts on core responsibilities; increasing use of simulation in navigation project design; aligning mission-critical locations; optimizing the vehicle fleet; modernizing business practices; improving real estate acquisition processes; delegating recreation resources; and implementing a Harbor Seal of Preparedness.

Transparency and Accountability

This section focuses on financial visibility and cost discipline within the Civil Works program.

Initiatives include district salary transparency; consequences for project cost overruns; deauthorization of inactive projects; consolidation of Corps websites; and cancellation of contracts not in the interest of the American taxpayer.

The district salary transparency initiative addresses how salary costs are currently embedded within project line-item accounting. The proposal would identify salary costs charged to specific projects and present those costs separately from other project line-item expenditures. Because district personnel costs are presently funded through and reflected within project budgets, separating those salary charges would change how project costs are displayed and monitored at the district level. The stated objective is to increase visibility into how federal project funds are allocated and improve oversight of personnel and overhead costs associated with project delivery.

Additional initiatives in this section include establishing consequences for project cost overruns, deauthorizing inactive projects, consolidating U.S. Army Corps of Engineers websites, and canceling contracts not deemed in the interest of the American taxpayer.

Prioritization

This section focuses on aligning resources with core Civil Works missions serving the national interest and improving project delivery performance.

The framework identifies overextension across mission areas, expansive procedural requirements, reliance on in-house delivery contributing to longer timelines, and portfolio performance concerns. Related briefings have referenced a review indicating that approximately 46 percent of projects are currently on track to meet cost and schedule targets.

A central component is the introduction of the RAPID decision framework for federal feasibility studies. The framework is intended to produce high-quality, authorizable projects while meeting a 35 percent design threshold at the time of recommendation, drawing on work developed through a multi-year study.

Based on current understanding, RAPID is described as:

  • Risk Informed: Making timely decisions using sufficient information rather than waiting for perfect information, with early identification and management of key risks and assumptions.
  • Aligned: Integrating teams, experts, and leadership from the outset and maintaining a streamlined path to decision-makers to keep studies on track.
  • Proportional: Matching the depth of analysis to the scope and cost of the project.
  • Iterative: Recognizing when new information or realized risks require adjustment and refining plans accordingly.
  • Decisive: Committing to a path forward once sufficient information supports a recommendation and avoiding delay in pursuit of unnecessary additional data.

This section also references assigning workload based on capability rather than geography and expanding use of contractors to augment federal capacity, particularly during workload peaks or where specialized expertise is required. It contemplates leveraging non-federal authorities and expertise for lower-priority efforts while directing federal resources toward nationally significant and complex projects.

Emergency response activities are not affected.

Implementation and Next Steps

The framework outlines 27 initiatives with varying levels of development. Some initiatives appear positioned for near-term implementation through internal policy direction or administrative action. Others may require additional guidance, coordination with the Office of Management and Budget, or further policy development before execution.

NWC will continue monitoring further guidance and evaluating implications for project delivery, non-federal sponsors, regulatory implementation, contracting practices, and upcoming WRDA 2026 discussions associated with this proposal.