Transcript USACE GEEZER BRIEF 2001

USACE Civil Works Program Development,
Defense & Execution
One Year on the Job
Observations, Conclusions,
Future Directions
Gary Loew, Chief, Programs Integration Division
Directorate of Civil Works
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Recent Past
6000
5000
4000
Admin. Budget
Appropriation
House Rpt
Senate Rpt
3000
2000
1000
0
1997
1999
2001
2003
2005
2007
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
FY97-06 Appropriations
6000
No Inflation
5000
4000
Approp.
Needs
3000
2000
1000
0
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
FY97-06 Appropriations
vs.FY07-12 Needs
9000
Computed
8000
Expectation
7000
6000
5000
Approp.
Needs
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
Criticisms of USACE Budget &
Financial Management Practices
• Administration
– Budget not related to vision,
strategy, goals, objectives
– Not observing PMA/PARTS
process
• Not budgeting to achieve
objectives
• No metrics to judge budget
or execution success
– Supporting materials not
timely or accurate
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
Criticisms of USACE Budget &
Financial Management Practices
• Congress (House)
– No vision, goals
• “Budget is just a collection of
projects.”
– No future planning (five year plan)
– Not defending ED&M
– Supporting materials not timely or accurate
– Using funds as Corps wants, not as Congress intended
(reprogramming)
– Using continuing contracts to circumvent intent of Congress
– Funds distributed across too many projects: inefficiently funding
projects to realize benefits as soon as possible
• Senate does not necessarily agree with all these points
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
Criticisms of USACE Budget &
Financial Management Practices
• Corps divisions, districts &
field offices
– Budget is not responsive to local or
regional needs
– Complex; too much information required
– Too many data calls; short suspenses
– District input ignored during final decision-making
• Final budget not consistent with district priorities (therefore
we’ll advise Congress where we really want it; or we’ll
reprogram appropriations to where they’re really needed.)
– Basis for decisions changes from year to year; each new year is
a crap shoot; cannot plan for the future
– No planning funds
– Little funding for new starts
– Projects funded inefficiently
– Continuing Authorities Programs politicized; inadequately funded
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
Criticisms of USACE Budget &
Financial Management Practices
• Stakeholders
– Do not understand basis
for budget decisions
-- Complex, complicated
– Changing decision processes
and metrics from year to year;
difficult to influence direction
– Cannot plan strategically; inconsistent
decision practices (suspensions)
– Not enough money for “their” projects and
programs
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
•Have not integrated vision/goals/long range planning into budget
development
•Have not truly integrated the Performance-Based budget process
•Little thoughtful, quality analysis
•Budget process is overly complicated
•Too much data
•Late changes; inconsistent, uncoordinated review process
•Late, inaccurate budget materials; almost impossible to be
timely, accurate
•Basis for decisions is not consistent from year-to-year
•Interested parties inside/outside government cannot project, plan
•Stakeholders Balkanized; little organized support the total program
•Serving too many masters
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
Have we responded?
Some FY05/06 Improvements
• Responded seriously to FY06 legislation
– ER 11-2-189
• Reprogramming
• Continuing contracts
• Reporting
• Accurate, timely reports
• Executing legislative intent
– Improved 5-year plan
• (But no “top 10” list)
• Agreement with OMB & Congress on content of FY07 5-Year
Development Plan
• OMB PARTS—serious effort to improve
• Enforcing one project-one ‘capability’ rule
• Restoring discipline to budgets and estimates—more
timely
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
How are we doing today?
Some FY05/06 Successes
•
•
•
•
•
FY06 Policy Implementation Guidance-45 days
3rd Supplemental estimates and appropriations
4th Supplemental
Improved and improving 5-Year Plan
Some Administration agreement on important budget
principles (discussions continue)
– Capital investment decisions are permanent
– Less reliance on remaining benefit/remaining cost ratio
– More use of other-than-economic decision factors (safety,
environment, watershed)
• Agreements with Administration & Congress on future
directions
– PARTS
– FYDP
– Willingness to discuss the larger issues
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
2Q FY06
G
Y
R
R
R
R
Co
m
So pet
ur it iv
ci n e
g
F
Pe ina
rfo nc
rm ial
an
ce
EGo
ve
rn
me
nt
Re
al
Pr
op
er
ty
Pe Bud
r
g
Int form et
eg a n
ra
tio c e
n
1Q FY07
Ca
pit
al
Projection
Arrows
Hu
ma
n
Ca
pit
al
Co
m
So pet
ur itiv
cin e
g
Fi
Pe na
rfo nc
r m ia l
an
ce
EGo
ve
rn
me
nt
Re
al
Pr
op
er
ty
B
Pe ud
r
g
I nt form et
eg an
ra
tio c e
n
Hu
ma
n
PRESIDENT’S
MGMT
AGENDA
PMA
Status and
Progress
PMA Status
PMA Progress
4Q FY07
3Q FY07
2Q FY07
*
4Q FY06
3Q FY06
G
G
G
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
R
G
Y
1Q FY06
• Changing the Budget Process
• One unifying concept of Program Development,
Defense and Execution
• Execute our Vision
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
Our Vision will drive the Budget
Senior Level
Accountability
Vision
Goals
Objectives
USACE/Admin./
Congressional
Agreement
Review &
Adjustment
Budget
USACE FYDP
Regional
FYDPs
Incorporate
Principles &
Metrics
Incorporated into
OMB/PMA/PARTS
Standards
Performance
Management
Command
Management
Review
Performance
Standards
& Metrics
SES Accountability
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
VISION
THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILL PLAN,
DESIGN, CONSTRUCT, OPERATE AND
MAINTAIN THE NATION’S WATER
RESOURCES INFRASTRUCTURE TO MEET
LOCAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL
CURRENT AND FUTURE NEEDS WITH
COST-EFFECTIVE, SAFE AND
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE
PROJECTS.
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
CW STRATEGIC GOALS
Goal 1. Sustainable development.
Goal 2. Repair past and prevent future environmental
losses.
Goal 3. ENSURE THAT PROJECTS PERFORM
TO MEET AUTHORIZED PURPOSES AND
EVOLVING CONDITIONS
Goal 4. Reduce vulnerability to natural and man-made
disasters
Goal 5. World-class public engineering organization
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
OBJECTIVES-NAVIGATION
•
•
For each Objective, there is a corresponding objective for all
relevant business lines.
OMB will have agreed to all Goals, Objectives and Standards!!
EXAMPLE: Goal 3, Objective 1: Navigation Business Line
OBJECTIVE: PROVIDE SAFE, COST-EFFECTIVE,
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE NAVIGATION
CHANNELS TO SUPPORT NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH
AND DEVELOPMENT
ACCOUNTABLE PERSON: DIRECTOR OF CIVIL WORKS
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
NAVIGATION BUSINESS LINE
QUANTIFY OBJECTIVE
•
THE OBJECTIVE MUST STATE A DESIRED OUTCOME
•
EXAMPLE: THE USACE NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS
WILL TRANSPORT 1.2 BILLION TONS OF COMMERCE
IN 2007
•
ACCOUNTABLE: CHIEF, CW OPERATIONS
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
NAVIGATION—METRICS
President’s Management Agenda (PMA)
Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
•
STANDARDS MAY BE OUTCOME AND OUTPUT
–
–
–
1. Transport 1.2 billion tons
2. No more than 5% channel non-availability
3. Restore project storm damage within 60 days
•
APPROVED BY: C/Programs, ASA(CW) and OMB
•
PERFORMANCE METRICS
–
–
–
1. Tonnage transported
2. 95% channel availability
3. Restore project storm damage within 60 days
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
BUDGET &
FIVE YEAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN (FYDP)
•
Divisions are responsible for Waterways budgets and
FYDPs to achieve objectives for their waterways.
•
Chief, Operations is responsible to budget and to
execute the program to achieve his objectives
•
Chief, Programs is responsible to develop, defend the
budget, to execute the appropriation and administer
the performance review process to achieve objectives,
as measured by performance standards
•
C/Programs is responsible for USACE FYDP to achieve
objectives
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
Bottom Line
All budget decisions will
be consistent with our
vision, and will be
formulated to achieve
agreed-upon metrics and
principles
By FY09, FYDP will begin to
drive budget decisions
• As we improve FYDP process, we will address some
‘larger issues’ with policy makers
• We do not discount time or difficulty involved with
some of these changes and issues
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
Newton’s First Law Still Applies
 Inertia reigns in the
budget process.
 The total amount of
funds available will
not change unless
acted upon by an
outside force
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
How Can We All Contribute?
• USACE: Provide the vision, goals in objectives in an
open, collaborative way.
• Administration: Listen, “walk the performancebased budget talk.”
• Stakeholders:
– Contribute to vision, Goals, Objectives, Metrics
– Communicate!
• Adopt the Vision to be the desired future state of
water resources development
• Create national desire for a water resources
infrastructure that will serve this Nation’s
economic, quality of [all] life and defense needs,
today and into the future.
• Support the budget that enables the vision
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation
One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation