ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
Capital Security Construction Program Assessment

Program Code 10000378
Program Title Capital Security Construction Program
Department Name Department of State
Agency/Bureau Name Department of State, activities
Program Type(s) Capital Assets and Service Acquisition Program
Assessment Year 2004
Assessment Rating Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 100%
Program Management 100%
Program Results/Accountability 93%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $800
FY2008 $692
FY2009 $844

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2007

Lower and maintain ratio of construction management costs to project costs at 5.5% through a more rigorous program of cost estimating and timely personnel assignments.

Action taken, but not completed
2007

Increase number of Capital Security Construction Projects completed within the scope and budget of the Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan through the use of more rigorous cost/schedule surveillance and monitoring of progress on site, and more realistic schedule duration assignments in the planning process.

Action taken, but not completed

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Ratio construction management costs to Long Range Overseas Buildings Plan construction project costs over $25M


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2002 8.0% 8.0%
2003 7.5% 7.5%
2004 7.0% 5.3%
2005 6.5% 3.8%
2006 5.5% 3.63%
2007 5.5% 3.4%
2008 5.5% 3.9%
2009 5.5%
2010 5.5%
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Number of Capital Security Construction Projects to be completed during each fiscal year as based on established timeframes pertaining to the size and scope of the capital project


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2002 2 2
2003 7 7
2004 3 3
2005 5 5
2006 15 13
2007 15 17
2008 9 5
2009 11
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Number of building sites acquired for capital security construction projects in accordance with the Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP)


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2002 10 10
2003 6 6
2004 8 8
2005 9 10
2006 7 7
2007 8 9
2008 10 6
2009 8
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Number of new capital security construction projects awarded


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2002 13 13
2003 9 9
2004 12 13
2005 12 14
2006 14 10
2007 13 11
2008 9 1
2009 12
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Percent of capital security construction projects completed within the schedule authorized in the construction contracts


Explanation:Five capital security construction projects (new embassy compounds) were completed in FY 2005 and inlcude Abidjan, Abuja, Frankfurt, Sofia, and Yerevan.

Year Target Actual
2002 100% 100% completed
2003 100% 100% completed
2004 100% 100% completed
2005 100% 100% completed
2006 100% 69% complete on time
2007 100% 76.5%
2008 100% 100%
2009 100%
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Percent of capital security construction projects completed within the approved construction budget


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2002 100% 100%
2003 100% 100%
2004 100% 100%
2005 100% 100%
2006 100% 100%
2007 100% 100%
2008 100% 100%
2009 100%

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Foreign Service Buildings Act of 1926 gives the Secretary of State the power to purchase or construct facilities abroad and that is also reflected clearly in the mission statement of the Department's Bureau Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO): "...to ensure that U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Missions abroad are provided safe, secure, and functional facilities...." The upsurge of international terrorism, particularly the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa, added emphasis to security issues. The purpose of OBO's security-related construction program was further specified in subsequent legislation and numerous State Department documents. The latter include OBO's Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plans, OBO's and the Department's annual performance plans, and annual budget requests that detail both the nature of the program and the purposes of individual construction projects.

Evidence: a. Foreign Service Buildings Act, 1926 (P.L. 69-186), as amended b. OBO Mission Statement c. FY 1998 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act d. Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999 e. Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan, FY04-09 f. FY2004 Bureau Performance Plan g. Dept. of State FY04 Perf. Plan h. FY 03 DOS/OBO Congressional Budget Request for Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance i. FY 04 Budget Request BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Goal Paper #1

YES 20%
1.2

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: Beginning with the "Inman Report" in 1985, and reinforced by reports of several high-level panels in the late 1990s, the consistent conclusion has been that personnel and operations at most U.S. diplomatic missions are in serious danger from terrorist and other security threats. The ample evidence has consisted of multiple attacks on overseas posts that are even more endangered in the environment of increasing worldwide terrorism. Paralleling these reports has been legislation, starting with the Omnibus Diplomatic Security Act of 1986 and (after a hiatus in funding for security-related construction projects) continuing with appropriations acts in FY 1998 through the present, that also spell out the problem and the related requirements. No doubt exists that there is a specific and very serious problem being addressed by the security capital construction program.

Evidence: See Sec. 1, Q 1 c - i j. Report of the Secretary of State's Advisory Panel on Overseas Security, 6/85 k. Omnibus Diplomatic Security Act of 1985 l. Report of Accountability Review Boards on Embassy Bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, 1/99 m. America's Overseas Presence in the 21st Century, Report of the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP), 11/99 n. Congressionally approved top 80, high-risk posts (Classified) o. Semi-Annual Report to Congress on Acquisition and Major Security Upgrades, 6/03 bbb. House Report on CJS FY02 Appropriations Bill BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Goal Paper #1

YES 20%
1.3

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Foreign Buildings Act of 1926, as amended, empowers the Secretary of State to acquire by purchase, construction, or exchange, buildings or grounds in foreign countries. Even though the Department of Defense has an overseas facilities program, DOD buildings are separate from those on diplomatic posts. USAID has received funding to place buildings on some embassy compounds, but these are constructed by OBO and planned and fully synchronized between USAID and OBO. In fact, DOS-USAID cooperation has reached new heights with annual State-USAID Strategic Plans and a recently formed Joint Management Council. USAID buildings pose no danger of duplications or overlaps. Thus, there is no other Federal facilities construction program of the nature of that carried out by OBO and, therefore, no potential redundancies.

Evidence: a. Foreign Service Buildings Act, 1926 (P.L. 69-186), as amended zzz. STATE 268997 on DOS-USAID Joint Strategic Plan and JMC BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 20%
1.4

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: Beginning in 2001, based on its new Director's extensive experience and knowledge of key industry best practices, OBO underwent a major reorganization; made extensive, corresponding improvements; and had a period of further refinements. While all OBO programs have benefited, the central focus was to enable OBO to effectively and efficiently execute the greatly expanding capital construction program that came in the wake of the 1998 bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa. Dramatic increases in capital projects in construction, substantially lower project costs, accelerated schedules, and superior products have all flowed from the better program design. It is not only free from significant flaws; it will be even further enhanced if Congress approves inter-agency capital security cost sharing—a concept developed by OBO and OMB to ensure adequate capital funding and promote "rightsizing" of mission staffing.

Evidence: r. IDR process y. Org Chart to address deficienies cc. Business case gg. Cable to posts on involvement in capital projects ii. OBO Pillars ttt. Chair, Subcmte CJS ltr dated 3/4/04 (cost sharing) vvv.Cost Sharing Cable. List of cap construction projs completed since FY01 and projects in construction. Stewardship Report 2003 BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 20%
1.5

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: The direct purpose of the program is clearly articulated in OBO's LROBP, with the specific need, nature, and intended benefits of each project spelled out in detail. The annual LROBP updates are, in turn, the products of wide-ranging intra-Departmental and inter-agency coordination to ensure that funds are directed at the highest priorities and planned in the optimum manner. Extensive consultations are done at the OMB and Congressional levels. The program's growth, the need to respond to the increase in the terrorist threat, and the improvement in OBO's organizational capabilities have combined to produce a program that is highly visible, meticulously planned, closely scrutinized, and precisely targeted. Over 7,000 of the intended beneficiaries of the capital program;employees serving at diplomatic posts overseas;have already been placed in new, secure, functional, safe facilities, and the construction program has reached record heights.

Evidence: e. LROBP FY2004-09 sss. OBO FY 2005 Budget Req. List of cap construction projects completed since FY01and projects currently in construction BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The program's desired outcome is much greater protection of overseas personnel, operations, and information from terrorism and other threats in facilities at the Department's highest risk posts. The Department intends to achieve this outcome with 187 major, multi-year construction projects'almost 20 percent of which were completed or started in the FY01-to-present period. What remains is a 14-year span (assuming Congressional approval of cost sharing) in which to receive funding for the remaining projects in what will be a program of unprecedented speed and magnitude for the Department. The top 80 high-risk posts in annual Congressional Report constitutes the initial long-range target, which is reflected in OBO's LROBP'along with specific performance goals/measures that closely track the requirements for and progress of replacing facilities at those posts. The major four measures are limited and focused on the most critical elements for the success of this program.

Evidence: e. Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP) p. Performance Measures for Capital Security Construction Program (abbreviated list) ll. Performance Measures for a Results-Based Organization" BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Paper I/P#1

YES 11%
2.2

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Performance targets are highly ambitious and ensure that the program stays on the "fast track." Over the next 14 years, largely through the new agency capital security cost-sharing initiative, the program will seek to fund the replacement of facilities at the remaining 150 (from the original 187) most vulnerable overseas posts. A brief review of the 75 new embassy compounds recently constructed, currently under construction, and in planning thru FY06 prove that the targets have been and continue to be highly ambitious. They also show that OBO has reached a historically high productivity level that demonstrates its abilities to maintain the pace needed to complete the proposed 14-year cycle. See question 4.1 for more detailed supporting data. Ambitiousness is equally reflected in the quality/cost-effective targets of the program and the organization. In combination, the targets, timeframes, and measures represent dramatically higher standards and aspirations.

Evidence: e. Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP) p. Performance Measures for Capital Security Construction Program (abbreviated list) ll. Performance Measures for a Results-Based Organization" BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Goal Paper I/P #1

YES 11%
2.3

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: From OBO's comprehensive annual performance goals, as described in its 75-page "Performance Measures for a Results-Based Organization," a limited number of key goals have been selected to demonstrate progress in the Capital Security Construction Program. These are to award contracts on time in accordance with the LROBP, to complete projects on schedule and within budgets, and to acquire sites for capital projects per the LROBP timetable. These discrete, quantifiable goals clearly represent meaningful measurements of progress. With acquisition of sites being a prerequisite for subsequent construction of facilities, for example, these sequential achievements indicate critical progression towards next steps in the upcoming target periods. The goal for awarding actual construction or design-build contracts is the clearest indicator of progress, with execution within budget and schedule goals being two central measures of efficiency.

Evidence: e. Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP) p. Performance Measures for Capital Security Construction Program (abbreviated list) ll. Performance Measures for a Results-Based Organization" BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Goal Paper I/P #1

YES 11%
2.4

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baselines and ambitious targets are in place. The overall program now has a time span of approximately 14 years (assuming Congressional approval of cost sharing) to fund 150 capital security construction projects (those remaining from the 187-project post-East Africa bombings baseline) on the most non-secure overseas compounds. By a huge margin, this is the most ambitious building program ever undertaken by the Department. In six-year increments, each project has a target start period specified in OBO's LROBP. Contracts with design and construction firms subsequently provide detailed timelines, and measuring takes place weekly in project status sessions and monthly in project performance reviews. Strict adherence to targets is stressed in these sessions and in the overall planning/execution process, accompanied by constant attention to keeping projects on the most accelerated schedules possible and controlling costs to the greatest extent feasible.

Evidence: e. Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP) xxx. FY 2005 Dept. Performance Report (DPP) and FY 2005 BPP; baselines and performance measures yyy. OBO Bugle (2004 No. 1) BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Goal Paper I/P#1

YES 11%
2.5

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: DOS bureaus, tenant agencies, and overseas posts are frequently consulted and provide input to the Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP) to ensure that all parties are committed to the goals and objectives of the program and that all are "on the same page" as to requirements and intended end results. The LROBP is constantly reviewed and, at the same time, planning/implementing data is collected, monitored, and updated quarterly in OBO's comprehensive Post Data Book. This broad intra- and inter-agency collaboration continues throughout project life cycles, in integrated design reviews (IDRs), and during all aspects of construction. Contractors become committed to projects by their contract terms and understanding of the goals reflected in the statements of work, as well as through participation in IDRs, value engineering studies, partnering sessions with OBO officials, and joint problem-solving efforts.

Evidence: q. Bureau/tenant agency input to the LROBP r. Integrated Design Review (IDR) process description gg. Cables that illustrate typical post involvement in planning for new construction projects tt. Statement of work (Kabul) kkk. OBO Post Data Book, 6/03" yyy. OBO Bugle (2204 No. 1) BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 11%
2.6

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Inspector General (OIG), overseas posts, and outsiders (other agencies, GAO, and Congress) play roles extensive enough to ensure comprehensive appraisals at every project phase. External agencies and others contribute to periodic revisions of the Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP) priorities and individual project plans. Value Engineering contractors, an Industry Advisory Board, and a Interagency Facilities Committee, as well as other outside groups, evaluate the effectiveness of the program and provide valuable information to assist the program in making improvements. Post personnel rate the buildings during OBO-conducted post-occupancy evaluations. GAO and the DOS OIG have commented favorably on this multi-phase collaboration and on the program's accomplishments. Further reviews by these auditing entities of aspects of the program are ongoing.

Evidence: q. Bureau/tenant agency input (sample) to the LROBP r. Integrated Design Review (IDR) Process description s. Value engineering study (sample on Sofia), VE performance chart, and VE policy decision memo t. Accreditation by DS on Kampala NOB (classified) u. Accreditation review procedures (MOU with DS) v. Post-occupancy evaluation sample (Ottawa) w. GAO 3/00 report: Overseas Emergency Security Program Progressing z. Project Performance Review (PPR) hhh. Certification letter to Congress on Sofia NEC BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 11%
2.7

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: OBO emphasizes budget and performance integration, and this is especially the case for capital projects. A business case is provided for each project in the budget request to explain what is needed, what to be accomplished, how much each major project component will cost. Budget requests are supported by the more extensive project descriptions in the LROBP, which serves as a background information budget document, and frequently by full-fledged project briefings. Those approving OBO funding end up knowing exactly what the funds are intended to purchase and how they fit into the Department's annual and long-term goals. Furthermore, once OBO became a results-based organization, adherence to declared project schedules and budgets has become a central, ongoing concern. Thus, what was transparently proposed has proved to be the final nature and cost of the project.

Evidence: sss. OBO FY 2005 Budget Req. bbbb. OBO/RM/FM, FY06 Budget Submission Guidance, 3/2/04. BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 11%
2.8

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: OBO has undergone a thorough organizational restructuring and a sweeping, accountability-centered revamping of procedures and corporate culture to address previously identified planning deficiencies. OBO has made a commitment to planning to attain more effective operations. The LROBP, with other information, lays out a detailed, six-year road map for the Capital Security Construction Program (with current plan covering FY04-09). The plan receives input from OBO clients and stakeholders and ensures all parties are "on the same page" in planning for new capital security construction projects. Other improvements to the overall planning process include using regular weekly and monthly project reviews in which top management determines the ongoing effectiveness of OBO's planning efforts and make any needed adjustments, and development of comprehensive Project Analysis Packages that provide project scopes, schedules, budgets, concepts, and execution plans.

Evidence: e. OBO Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP) F. BBP Overview (incls. organizational strategies) r. Integrated Design Review Process y. OBO organization chart z. Monthly Project Performance Review (PPR) example hh. OBO Industry Day charts ii. "What's New in OBO" (pillars) kk. Program Assessment briefing charts (re prior deficiencies) mm. GAO 1/01 Rpt.: Embassy Construction Requires Better Long-Term Planning ddd. Industry Advisory Panel, brief description eee. Standard Embassy Design Description BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 11%
2.CA1

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: As part of its business case methodology, OBO analyses a full-range of lternatives to determine cost-benefit risk, tradeoffs among costs, schedules, performance, and other factors as a means for acquiring facilities. Decisions on whether to construct new facilities; to lease, build to lease, or purchase; to design/build or design/bid/build; or to seek other approaches are examples of analytical decisions made in considering the alternatives. A recent illustration was the decision to rehabilitate an existing S??o Paulo facility rather than construct a new one;which saved about $40 million, met standards, and provided a first-class facility ahead of the original "new construction" schedule. An OBO-DS risk management group assesses innovative, out-of-the-box design and construction methods to reduce cost and time while ensuring security standards are met.

Evidence: r. Integrated design review (IDR) process description s. Value engineering policy decision memo; VE performance chart; VE study (Sofia) z. Project Performance Review (PPR) 7/30/02, showing Nairobi & Dar es Salaam results cc. "The Business Case, " with Capital Security Project Program examples ee. Telephonic report of construction activities (Zagreb)

YES 11%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 100%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Posts, DOS regional bureaus, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security, and tenant agencies participate in developing and prioritizing projects. Once a project begins, feedback from those entities continues'in design reviews and especially from posts during construction (directly to OBO or through regional bureaus). Within OBO, all participating offices and divisions closely monitor program performance and report to the Director/Chief Operating Officer during weekly project status meetings and monthly Project Performance Reviews (PPRs). During construction, on-site project directors also report detailed performance data on a monthly basis. All of these mechanisms are used to collect timely, credible, appropriate performance information that is used to manage and improve the program and individual projects. Performance indicators are also captured through the performance measure process.

Evidence: f. Bureau Performance Plan (BPP) overview g. DOS FY03 Performance Plan (OBO section) z. Program Performance Review (PPR) 7/30/02 example dd. Project Director's monthly report (Abu Dhabi example) aaaa. Weekly "Projects in Planning & Development" report & review BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 14%
3.2

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: OBO project managers are held fully accountable for successful execution and must personally explain project performance to the OBO Director and senior management on a weekly and monthly basis, as noted in question 3.1. Stressing this accountability has been the Director's constant, forcefully emphasized, major focus, and this has included closely linking awards, promotions, and appraisals to relevant performance measures incorporated into each manager's and employee's personal performance standards. In the 2003 Guide for Developing NEC Staffing Projections, and as stressed in many forums, all tenant agency staffing estimates for a new facility are run through a multi-layer validation process, with any changes after OMB approval being severely limited and held within the total existing project budget. Contractors also are held accountable for performance, with satisfactory work affecting payments and satisfactory end results being a prerequisite for participation in future contract

Evidence: z. Project Performance Review (7/30/02), showing Nairobi, Tunis, and Dar es Salaam results) jj. "What We Want in Accountability" ll. "Performance Measures for a Results-Based Organization" rr. Evaluation factors for contract award (incl. evaluations for past performance) BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 14%
3.3

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Solid evidence for timeliness are the relatively short spans (2-3 months) between Congressional approvals and obligations for project design, design/build, or construction contracts. Some security and project direction expenses are spread throughout the project life cycle, and other costs—such as communications equipment and furniture—come up at appropriate intervals after construction begins. OBO has obligated funds in regular, sequential, timely steps, with the existence of unobligated balances reflecting project phase, not the lack of well-timed obligations. OBO's exceptional achievement of finishing projects on schedule demonstrates that post-construction contract award obligations have been timely. Once appropriations are made, and subsequent project-by-project congressional approvals have been obtained, OBO has obligated funds expeditiously and has maintained detailed documentation that all funds were spent for the intended purposes.

Evidence: iii. Capital Security Construction Projects: Congressional Approval-to-Obligation Table z. Project Performance Reviews (PPRs) showing obligations status of capital projects cccc. OBO Financial Acct Recs BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 14%
3.4

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: OBO comprehensively utilizes incentives and procedures to improve value per dollar. The most cost-effective solution for providing facilities is chosen (see 2 CA1 above). Integrated Planning Reviews are conducted. Standard embassy designs (SEDs) are applied to save money by using proven models and reducing design requirements to post-specific adaptations. Integrated Design Reviews follow. Next, the contract award process predominantly uses fixed-price, design/build contracts that maximize competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, speed, and risk reduction. Intensive value engineering efforts gain the needed functionality at reduced cost, and other best practices, such the Project Definition Rating Index tool developed by the Construction Industry Institute, improve project planning. Finally, progress is carefully scrutinized at every step in regular, senior-management-level weekly and monthly meetings where efficiencies, effectiveness, and costs are scrutinized.

Evidence: s. Value Engineering documentation/study v. Post-occupancy evaluation rr. Evaluation factors for awarding contracts ss. Solicitations re using fixed-price, design-build for standard embassy design projects, using one contractor for multiple projects (4 greater efficiency/lower cost strategies) aaa. OBO Director/COO's memo on mandatory COR training eee. Standard Embassy Design description yyy. OBO Bugle (2004 No. 1) BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 14%
3.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

NA 0%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: In recent annual audits of the Department of State's principal financial statements and controls, neither OBO nor its Capital Security Construction Program received any critical statements. OBO has instituted comprehensive procedures to ensure that payments are made properly for intended purposes and in accordance with prompt payment requirements. The Department's financial and OBO's voucher tracking systems have controls that prohibit duplicate payments. All Contracting Officer Representatives are required to take 40 hours of COR training, with periodic updating sessions, that emphasize the handling of design and construction contracts. Performance measures have been established for the timely payment of invoices and the elimination of interest payments. These are Performance reported on in monthly in Project Performance Reviews, and they are reflected in individual performance standards.

Evidence: zz. Department of State Accountability Reports for FY01 (Independent Auditor's Report section) aaa. OBO Director/COO's memo on mandatory COR training ccc. PPR 8/2/02, Vendor Payments Processing Analysis ddd. Industry Advisory Panel, brief description jjj. Vendor Payment Approval and Processing Procedures BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 14%
3.7

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Since March 2001, as a new bureau, OBO has undergone a thorough restructuring and a sweeping, accountability-centered revamping of procedures to address previous management deficiencies identified in numerous reports. For example the 1/01 GAO criticism about the quality of long-range planning has been amply answered by the creation of a multi-division office to provide integrated, expert planning and development of OBO's Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan that lays out a detailed map for the program. Other management improvements include making explicit, detailed business cases for major decisions; developing OBO-wide performance measures for programs, projects, and individuals; managing risk better by using the International Project Risk Assessment tool and requiring two independent cost estimates for all capital projects; and holding all program managers strictly accountable in weekly and monthly meetings chaired by OBO's Director.

Evidence: e. OBO Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP) f. BPP overview (incls. organizational strategies) r. Integrated Design Review Process y. OBO organization chart z. Monthly Project Performance Review (PPR) example hh. OBO Industry Day charts (efforts to gain ideas/partners) ii. "What's New in OBO" (pillars) kk. Program Assessment briefing slides (re: addressing prior deficiencies) mm. GAO 1/01 Report: Embassy Construction Requires Better Long-Term Planning BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 14%
3.CA1

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: OBO's extensive LROBP development process comprehensively and clearly defines capital project characteristics, with security aspects conforming to intelligence community standards and facility needs being determined with input by USG stakeholders. Performance requirements for deliverables (embassies, consulates, etc.) undergo additional adjustments at budget request time. Project statements of work describe the quality and performance expected from potential contractors, who share risks with performance-based, fixed-price agreements. Competitive procurements and negotiations further define requirements, including cost/schedule calculations and execution strategies based on Project Analysis Packages, Standard Embassy Designs, and OBO Architectural & Engineering Embassy Design Guidelines. At each stage'planning, design, and construction'projects are closely monitored in weekly and monthly review sessions for cost, schedule, and other key performance indicators.

Evidence: e. OBO Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan (LROBP) qq. Project Analysis Package (Yaounde 7/02)--project justifications, details, and cost/schedule goals tt. Statement of Work (Kabul) abbreviated sample eee. Architectural & Engineering Design Guidelines for U.S. Diplomatic Mission Buildings qqq. Project Requirement Rev. Sessions (Examples: planning & design - Algiers, Jerusalem, Moscow) - 6/2/03 rrr. Project Requirements Review Sessions (Examples: construction - Bridgetown, Cape Town, S??o Paulo) - 6/2/03 BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 100%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: OBO has made tremendous progress in its goal to replace facilities at 187 of the most vulnerable posts. By completing 12 projects through mid FY 2004, with 25 others in construction, of which 23 are to be completed in FY04-06, OBO is progressing at an unprecedented rate. With another 65 capital security projects planned for award between FY04-FY08, OBO is on a record pace—one that should be accelerated by the FY05 implementation of a cost-sharing program developed by OBO and OMB. That approach should reduce the Capital Security Construction Program's funding cycle from 26 to 14 years. By comparison the "Inman Program," the Department's largest previous undertaking of this kind, resulted in 19 capital project completions in 11 years. OBO is set to complete over five times as many capital security construction projects in the same number of years.

Evidence: f. BPP Overview h. & i. & sss: FY03 & 04 & 05 budget requests p. Performance Measures for Capital Security Construction Program fff. Program Comparison: Inman Program vs. Current Program lll. Capital Cost-sharing and Right-sizing Senior Review Presentation" List of capital construction projects completed since FY2001 and in construction ttt. Chairman, Subcmte ltr on CJS dtd 3/4/04; committment to security and cost sharing BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Goal Paper I/P#1

YES 20%
4.2

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: As demonstrated previously in PART reviews, the program achieves or exceeds its annual goals. Since the latest PART review (FY 2003), OBO has continued to excel with its performance goals and targets and fully expects to do so again in FY 2004 (assuming Congressional funding approval to award contracts). Acquisition of NEC sites, award of capital construction contracts, maintenance of projects within authorized construction schedules and budgets, while maintaining an efficient ratio of management/construction costs, are on or above target. And the pace is increasing by means of a comprehensive, well organized, sustained effort to ensure the acquisition of necessary NEC sites and the award of 38 capital security projects over the Bureau Performance Plan period (FY04-05).

Evidence: f. Bureau Performance Plan (overview--strategies) r. Integrated design reviews s. Value engineering policy and study kk. Program assessment briefing pp. Cost Reductions in FY01 Capital Projects qq. Project Analysis Package bbb. House Rpt on CJS FY02 Appropriations Bill (re cost reductions) mmm: Spread sheet of Value Engineering projects and savings for FY01-03 BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Goal Paper I/P#1

YES 20%
4.3

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: OBO restructured its management and organizational elements and adopted best practices to gain greater efficiency and effectiveness in constructing capital projects. OBO attained bureau status and became a results-based organization that fully employs efficiencies that result from initiatives such as (1) adopting an automated design review/checking system ("Dr Checks") and integrated design review procedures to reduce design time and costs and increase project quality, (2) employing value engineering to gain greater construction efficiencies and cost effectiveness, (3) implementing new Standard Embassy Designs (SEDs) to reduce design times/costs and deliver better facilities with proven designs, and (4) making greater use of design/build contracts to cut construction time/costs and increase contractor accountability. Considerable emphasis has also been placed on reducing life-cycle costs while improving performance of new facilities.

Evidence: f. Bureau Performance Plan (overview--strategies) r. Integrated design reviews s. Value engineering policy and study kk. Program assessment briefing pp. Cost Reductions in FY01 Capital Projects qq. Project Analysis Package bbb. House Rpt on CJS FY02 Appropriations Bill (re cost reductions) mmm: Spread sheet of Value Engineering projects and savings for FY01-03 BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Goal Paper I/P#1

YES 20%
4.4

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

NA 0%
4.5

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The OIG and GAO reviewed this entire capital program and made highly favorable initial observations. State's IG commended OBO, in Congressional testimony, for its significant improvements in planning and management, new standard embassy design concept, and other areas. The GAO, in its 1/03 semi-annual report and in Congressional testimony, complimented OBO on the many positive steps to improve program management, noting favorably OBO's development of a long-range overseas buildings plan (LROBP) and its use of an Industry Advisory Panel to ensure "best practices" are in place. In the latter regard, in March 2003, GSA's Management Secretariat, through the Gallup Organization, cited the Industry Advisory Panel as one of the top examples of Federal Advisory committees demonstrating superior results. GAO went on to list the many accomplishments that OBO had made and the excellent results attained.

Evidence: t. DS Accreditation Review of Kampala (classified) u. Accreditation Review Procedures v. Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) w. GAO report on Overseas Emergency Security Program Progressing nnn. GAO testimony before Cmte on Foreign relations 3/20/03 ooo. GAO Rpt. to Congress dated 1/1/03 ppp. Testimony of Acting OIG of State on April 7, 2003, before the Govt Reform Subcmte on Nat'l Security, emerging Threats and International Relations Cmte BPP Evidence: A/S Statement:

LARGE EXTENT 13%
4.CA1

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: As noted in OBO's response to question 4.2, all seven capital security construction projects completed in FY03 (Bogota (AID/NAS), Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam (AID), Istanbul, Nairobi, Tunis, and Zagreb) came in on budget and on time. The two completed thus far in FY04 (Abu Dhabi and S??o Paulo) similarly met these targets. Furthermore, the five projects still to be completed this fiscal year (Abidjan, Abuja, Cape Town, Sofia, and Yerevan) are currently on time and budget. Given the complicated nature of large construction projects, especially in varied and difficult overseas environments, to attain this excellent budgetary and timeliness record constitutes an outstanding achievement. As mentioned at a recent meeting of the Department's Industry Advisory Group, OBO is exceeding private sector performance standards.

Evidence: e. LROBP kk. Program Assessment briefing nn. OBO Capital Project Overview (5/02) oo. OBO Real Estate & Property Management Office (REPM) 8/02 Program Performance Review on new embassy compound (NEC) site acquisitions cccc. Comments at 4/22/04 IAP Mtg. of Derish Wolff (Chairman, Berger Group Holdings) representing the Amer. Council of Engineering Companies & the Bldg. Trades Group BPP Evidence: A/S Statement: Goal Papers: Goal Paper I/P#1

YES 20%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 93%


Last updated: 09062008.2004SPR