usace civil works program development defense execution n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
USACE Civil Works Program Development, Defense & Execution PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
USACE Civil Works Program Development, Defense & Execution

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 28

USACE Civil Works Program Development, Defense & Execution - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 202 Views
  • Uploaded on

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. FY97-06 Appropriations. No Inflation.

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'USACE Civil Works Program Development, Defense & Execution' - rona


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
usace civil works program development defense execution

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

slide5

Something

Must Change!

criticisms of usace budget financial management practices
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
criticisms of usace budget financial management practices1
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
criticisms of usace budget financial management practices2
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
criticisms of usace budget financial management practices3
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
slide10

Conclusions...

  • 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
slide11

Have we responded?

How are we doing? today?

have we responded some fy05 06 improvements
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
how are we doing today some fy05 06 successes
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
slide15

Where are

we headed?

  • Changing the Budget Process
  • One unifying concept of Program Development, Defense and Execution
  • Execute our Vision
our vision will drive the budget
Our Vision will drive the Budget

Vision

Senior Level

Accountability

Goals

Objectives

USACE/Admin./

Congressional

Agreement

USACE FYDP

Regional FYDPs

Incorporate Principles & Metrics

Budget

Review &

Adjustment

Incorporated into

OMB/PMA/PARTS

Standards

Performance

Standards

& Metrics

Performance

Management

Command

Management

Review

SES Accountability

vision
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.

cw strategic goals
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

objectives navigation
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

navigation business line quantify objective
NAVIGATION BUSINESS LINEQUANTIFY 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
navigation metrics
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
budget five year development plan fydp
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
bottom line
Bottom Line

All budget decisions will be consistent with our vision, and will be formulated to achieve agreed-upon metrics and principles

  • 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

By FY09, FYDP will begin to drive budget decisions

newton s first law still applies
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
how can we all contribute
How Can We All Contribute?
  • USACE: Provide the vision, goals in objectives in an open, collaborative way.
  • Administration: Listen, “walk the performance-based 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