USACE Civil Works Program Development, Defense & Execution Gary Loew, Chief, Programs Integration...

USACE Civil Works Program Development, Defense & Execution

USACE Civil Works Program Development, Defense & Execution

Gary Loew, Chief, Programs Integration DivisionDirectorate of Civil Works

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

One Year on the JobObservations, Conclusions,

Future Directions

One Corps, Serving the Army and the Nation

The Recent PastThe Recent Past

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007

Admin. BudgetAppropriationHouse RptSenate Rpt


FY97-06 AppropriationsFY97-06 Appropriations

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Approp.Needs

No Inflation


FY97-06 Appropriations vs.FY07-12 Needs

FY97-06 Appropriations vs.FY07-12 Needs

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011

Approp.Needs

Computed

Expectation


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




• 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




• 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




• 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


•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


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 SuccessesHow 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


PRESIDENT’S MGMT AGENDAPRESIDENT’S MGMT AGENDAPMA Status and Progress

RRRRYG

*

1Q FY061Q FY06

2Q FY062Q FY06

3Q FY063Q FY06

4Q FY064Q FY06

1Q FY071Q FY07

2Q FY072Q FY07

3Q FY073Q FY07

4Q FY074Q FY07

PMA StatusPMA Status

YG RGGG

PMA ProgressPMA ProgressProjectionProjectionArrowsArrows


• 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

Objectives

Budget

PerformanceStandards& Metrics

PerformanceManagement

Review &Adjustment

Goals

Vision

USACE/Admin./CongressionalAgreement

Senior LevelAccountability

Incorporated intoOMB/PMA/PARTS

Standards

USACE FYDPRegional FYDPsIncorporate Principles & Metrics

SES Accountability

CommandManagement

Review


VISIONVISION

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 GOALSCW 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-NAVIGATIONOBJECTIVES-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 LINEQUANTIFY 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—METRICSNAVIGATION—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


• 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

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

Bottom LineBottom Line

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

USACE Civil Works Program Development, Defense & Execution Gary Loew, Chief, Programs Integration...

Documents

Transcript of USACE Civil Works Program Development, Defense & Execution Gary Loew, Chief, Programs Integration...