Sacramento District puts new USACE governance framework into action
At the center of the discussion, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sacramento District Commander Col. Robert McTighe delivered a straightforward message.
"Don't cook the books. Don't make things look better than they are. I want to see the real numbers," McTighe said.
The exchange unfolded during Sacramento District's inaugural District Engineering Review (DER), one element of a coordinated governance framework the district has established to put new USACE Headquarters direction into practice.
Rather than treating the new requirements as another administrative process, Sacramento District is incorporating a structured rhythm of leadership reviews, enterprise management tools and direct engagement with project delivery teams into how it oversees engineering and construction.
Under Engineer Regulation 5-1-District, issued in August 2026, USACE districts are directed to establish a coordinated approach to governance that strengthens leadership oversight, engineering quality, workforce management and project delivery.
For McTighe, the change is about more than establishing new meetings. It represents a shift in how decisions are made, how risks are identified and how information moves through the organization.
“Top priority projects require top priority governance,” McTighe said. While Sacramento District has long devoted significant leadership attention to its highest-priority projects, the new framework establishes a more consistent approach to identifying risks, allocating resources and maintaining accountability across the district's entire portfolio.
Led by the district's Deputy District Engineer for Engineering and Construction Mark "Rock" DeRocchi, the DER brings together engineering, construction, project management, contracting and other district leaders to examine technical quality, project readiness, workforce capacity and emerging risks.
The review also connects district-level engineering oversight to regional and enterprise governance forums, creating a pathway for elevating technical concerns and resource challenges that cannot be resolved at the district level.
McTighe explained that the new regulation reflects an emphasis on command-centered decision making, breaking down organizational silos and bringing leadership closer to the challenges facing project delivery teams.
The intent, DeRocchi explained, is to move "left of bang," a military expression for identifying and addressing problems before they occur.
That approach became evident when Craig Fraulino, a technical lead, raised questions about Headquarters guidance affecting fenceline requirements for an upcoming barracks project.
The issue, which could influence project planning and design, was brought before district leadership and technical representatives who might not otherwise have been involved in the same discussion.
"This is exactly why we have the DER," DeRocchi said. "We want technical leads bringing these issues forward early, while we still have the opportunity to address them before they affect project delivery."
The district is also incorporating the Engineering Management System (EMS), a USACE enterprise application that provides greater visibility into engineering workloads, staffing requirements and available technical capacity.
Where workforce and workload information was previously maintained in individual spreadsheets or relied on employees' institutional knowledge, EMS consolidates that information into an interactive environment where managers can examine engineering requirements across branches, disciplines, projects and time periods.
Color-coded heatmaps display projected workload against available engineering capacity. The visualizations allow leaders to identify periods when demand may exceed available resources, recognize disciplines with potential capacity and anticipate staffing conflicts before they affect project schedules.
Users can sort and filter workload information by engineering discipline, organizational unit and reporting period, allowing managers to move from a districtwide overview to a more detailed examination of specific resource requirements.
The system also provides visibility into work Sacramento District performs for other USACE districts, as well as engineering support it receives from partner districts. That information is particularly valuable when specialized expertise is limited, or multiple projects compete for the same technical resources.
"We can look across disciplines, see where workload is building and identify where we have capacity," said an EMS technical representative. "Instead of managing resources in separate spreadsheets, we're giving leadership a much clearer picture of what the district needs to deliver."
During the review, McTighe challenged division and branch chiefs to look beyond their immediate organizational responsibilities and use EMS workload projections to identify opportunities to shift engineering resources where they are needed most, including support for military construction projects and work across district boundaries.
While greater access to information is helpful, it’s only valuable when the information itself can be trusted.
As engineering leaders examined the district's Engineering Quality Risk Indicators (EQRI), some projects displayed high confidence ratings across categories including cost, schedule, scope and technical quality.
When several indicators showed 100% confidence, Beth Salyers, Deputy District Engineer for Programs and Project Management, challenged the assessments.
Were those ratings based solely on the technical lead’s judgment? Had project managers been consulted? Did the percentages accurately reflect opinions of all project delivery team members?
The discussion brought engineering, project management and contracting perspectives into the same conversation, revealing different interpretations of schedule confidence and highlighting the importance of shared assessments.
Rick Wells, chief of the Military Design Branch, noted that the assessment process is still developing and that the current questionnaire does not always capture the complexity behind project confidence ratings.
"The intent is to identify risks early, but we need to make sure the questions and assessments give us an accurate picture of where projects stand," Wells said.
DeRocchi emphasized that the indicators are intended to provide early warnings of potential risks, but their value depends on accurate, current information informed by the entire project delivery team.
The candid exchange was precisely the kind of discussion district leadership wanted to encourage.
"There's a ton of value in this," McTighe said. "It gives us an opportunity to dig into the details, ask the tough questions and get ahead of problems before they affect project delivery."
For Salyers, the value of the new governance framework will ultimately be measured by whether it helps employees accomplish their missions.
"These meetings are for all of us," Salyers said. "I don't want them to be information gathering for command. It has to be meaningful for the PDTs, for the teams to execute."
The district is also incorporating construction quality information from the Resident Management System through Construction Quality Risk Indicators (CQRI), expanding the range of project performance information available for leadership review.
Together, EMS, EQRI and CQRI are intended to give district leaders a more comprehensive view of workforce capacity, engineering quality and construction risks, allowing technical concerns and resource requirements to be examined within the same governance process.
The governance changes come as the Army pursues new approaches to military construction, including progressive design-build, earlier contractor involvement and accelerated project delivery. Those approaches place increasing importance on early coordination, design maturity, site readiness, workforce availability and timely decision-making.
By bringing engineering, construction, contracting and project management into the same conversation earlier, the district aims to identify conflicting requirements and address potential risks before they become schedule delays, contract modifications or construction challenges.
Throughout the inaugural DER, the commitment to collaboration was visible. Technical leads stood to explain project challenges, division chiefs questioned assumptions and leadership encouraged candid assessments rather than overly optimistic reporting.
The result was less a traditional briefing and more a collaborative working session focused on improving project execution.
As the inaugural review concluded, district leaders acknowledged that the new tools and processes would continue to evolve. What mattered, they emphasized, was whether the information and discussions helped teams make better decisions and deliver projects.
"These are new meetings for us. We're going to learn as we go," Salyers said. "They're going to evolve, and that's OK. If they're not perfect today, we'll get them better as we go along."
"If it's not helping us execute, there's no point in having them," she added. "The whole point is to execute and deliver."
Legal Disclaimer:
EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.
