|Program Title||Army Depot Maintenance|
|Department Name||Dept of Defense--Military|
|Agency/Bureau Name||Department of Defense--Military|
Direct Federal Program
|Assessment Section Scores||
|Program Funding Level
|*Note: funding shown for a program may be less than the actual program amount in one or more years because part of the program's funding was assessed and shown in other PART(s).|
|Year Began||Improvement Plan||Status||Comments|
Conduct a Lean Six Sigma Event on the FY10-15 program formulation and for the Prelimary Process for review of Requirement Submission.
Continue to ensure that equipment provided by depots to Army units is in a high state of repair and ready for use in combat operations.
|Action taken, but not completed||Completion will be ongoing.|
|Year Began||Improvement Plan||Status||Comments|
Measure: Percentage of actual inductions of critical systems relative to planned inductions.
Explanation:Goal is to induct 100% of planned assets for each commodity.
Measure: Complete 100% of planned efficiency improvement studies at each of the five army depots.
Explanation:This measure demonstrates the Army's commitment to continuous process improvements within the organic depot maintenance production areas over which it has control. A completed LSS study will either generate a "leaner" process (things that you no longer need to do) and/or generate efficiencies (ie reduction in cycle time). Efficiencies are expressed in terms of Cost Reductions, Savings, Cost Avoidance, or Revenue Generation. The efficiency efforts of all 5 installations will be rolled up into one reporting measure for the entire business area. The Army's maintenance depots have just begun to report this regularly, so there is no historical data to input for prior years.
|Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design|
Is the program purpose clear?
Explanation: The purpose of the Army's Depot Maintenance program is to fully recondition or overhaul weapon systems and equipment for Army units. It fulfills the Army's strategic maintenance program requirements and is a critical component of the Army's effort to maintain units ready for combat.
Evidence: Title 10, US Code Section 2460 establishes the definition of depot maintenance. Title 10, US Code Section 2466 defines how the Services will perform depot level maintenance.
Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?
Explanation: Army units must have weapon systems and equipment that are ready to deploy and execute any mission they are given. Depot Maintenance supports this readiness requirement by reconditioning and overhauling combat systems. At the end of the process, the equipment that is returned to the operational units of the army is more reliable and capable.
Evidence: Title 10, US Code Section 3062 requires the Army to man, train, and equip units ready to execute combat missions.
Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?
Explanation: There are no other Federal or State programs that restore equipment to a fully reconditioned/overhauled state. The only other alternative would be to procure new systems as the old systems wear out, which is cost prohibitive.
Evidence: This program is strictly for military equipment as cited in Title 10 US Code Section 2460 which defines depot maintenance. The Budget of the United States Government reflects that Department of Defense is the only source of this program.
Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?
Explanation: The Army continuously reviews its maintenance procedures and models to increase their effectiveness and efficiency. As currently structured, the Depot Maintenance program is a cost effective method of restoring Army weapon systems and equipment to a combat-ready state. The by-product of this effort is the Army's ability to deploy combat-ready forces. Other approaches, such as increased procurement of new systems or greater maintenance and overhaul responsibility at the unit level would not be nearly as effective or efficient.
Evidence: All Army maintenance depots are certified in International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Weekly, monthly and annual production reviews ensure visibility and resolution of any effectiveness or efficiency issues.
Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?
Explanation: Equipment maintenance is a high priority for the army and funding is specifically targeted to address the army's highest priority maintenance requirements first. The Army's Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations manages a matrix that prioritizes all depot maintenance requirements in sequence. This matrix ensures that the Army's highest priority and most critical equipment requirements are funded first.
Evidence: During the year of execution, readiness issues or actual operations, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, often require unanticipated adjustments to the plan laid out at the beginning of teh year. When this happens, the Army's approach is to reallocate funding from the lowest priority program that is funded to the higher priority. Under normal peacetime conditions, funding shortfalls are always applied to the lowest priority programs first thereby targeting the available funds at the most critical systems.
|Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design||Score||100%|
|Section 2 - Strategic Planning|
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 overarching performance measure for the Depot Maintenance program -- actual versus planned work completed on the Army's most critical warfighting systems -- is tied to the Army's overall readiness to accomplish its assigned missions. Without a successful depot maintenance program, Army units would not be ready for war. Army leadership establishes Depot Maintenance goals to ensure that units get critical equipment (such as Abrams tanks, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Blackhawk helicopters, and HMMWVs) when they need it.
Evidence: In the broadest sense, the outcome measurement that matters most is a commander's assessment of the readiness of his unit to accomplish its assigned mission. This assessmenet, known as the Status of Resources and Training Systems (SORTS) is classified, but without a successful depot maintenance program that returns reliable equipment to the operational force on time, individual units would not be ready. The Army's Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3 (Operations) establishes priorities for the depot maintenance program and identifies a subset of the priority list that is considered mission critical. These priorities are developed by specific pieces of equipment and the capability that equipment provides to the Combatant Commander. By producing according to plan and priority, the depots support the materiel readiness of Army weapon systems, which in turn supports unit readiness.
Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?
Explanation: Workload is currently programmed through fiscal year 2013 to ensure the maintenance depots and commercial contractors produce to meet the Army's needs. Meeting the goal of completing 100% of the planned inductions per year for the army's 17 critical warfighting systems is ambitious because of the strain the GWOT is putting on the system. As the war continues and equipment wears out and breaks down at a faster than anticipated pace, depot requirements increase.
Evidence: Wartime requirements have increased the demand on the Depot Maintenance program. Should the program falter, unit readiness will suffer, and the ability of the army to perform its assigned missions will assume greater risk. In an effort to improve productivity, the Depot Maintenance program has embraced process improvement methodologies (Lean Six Sigma). The maintenance depots establish efficiency and effectiveness targets (Lean Six Sigma projects) and initiate Public Private Partnerships to achieve these targets. The Public Private Partnerships enable the depots to enter into innovative arrangements with commercial companies to capitalize on each organization's strengths, thus attaining improvements in efficiency and productivity. Lean Six Sigma success stories in fiscal year 2005 include: increasing monthly machine gun production from 300 to 700; increasing monthly heavy truck production from 5 to 18; and reducing the M88 Recovery Vehicle repair cycle time from 82 to 52 days. All Army maintenance depots are certified in International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
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: The Army closely monitors depot throughput on a weekly basis to ensure that it remains on track to meet its goal of completing 100% of the work required on critical systems. Responsiveness measures look at variances between scheduled and actual production (monthly and annual). Efficiency measures (Lean Six Sigma) evaluate the status of each project.
Evidence: HQ,AMC reviews these responsiveness and efficiency measures at its weekly depot maintenance sustainment base program execution reviews.
Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?
Explanation: Annual targets (that are the same as the long-term targets) are established by the army leadership. These targets are ambitious given the increased strain the GWOT is putting on the system as equipment takes far more punishment than it does in peacetime.
Evidence: Volume I, President's Budget Justification Book, provides a display which shows the Budgeted (quantities and dollars) for selected weapon systems and equipment, estimated inductions, actual completions, and carryover. Volume II of the Justification Book shows required and deferred workload. HQ,AMC also reviews original annual baselines, and adjusts targets based on real world changes in Army priorities during the year of execution.
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: Government employees and contractors perform depot level maintenance work at both contractor and government-owned facilities. All providers of depot-level maintenance work toward accomplishing baseline requirements approved for Depot Maintenance Recapitalization and Overhaul.
Evidence: The Army uses the Depot Maintenance Operations Planning System (DMOPS) to make available online to Army organizations the approved Depot Maintenance Program to ensure all partners know the Army's priorities and follow through with execution.
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 Depot Maintenance Program is routinely reviewed through various audits and studies by the Army Audit Agency, Government Accountability Office, and the Department of Defense Inspector General.
Evidence: The Department of Defense Inspector General, Government Accountability Office (June 2005), and the Army Audit Agency (December 2005, May 2006, June 2006) are examples of previous and current reviews. The Army also routinely works with these organizations to request audits on specific areas of interest or concern. Further evidence of Army actions to correct identified deficiencies can be seen in audit recommendations and responses for which the Army commits to action. Each response includes the specific actions that will be taken as well as a timeframe in which the actions will be completed. The Army Audit Agency and the General Accountability Office then conduct follow-on audits where the status of those commitments is evaluated. If the timelines for implementation of a recommendation have changed, a new date is established until each audit recommendation is implemented and the audit can be formally closed.
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: The Army's Depot Maintenance budget request is tied to accomplishing work on the Army's most critical systems. These requirements are presented in a budget exhibit that reflects the quantity and type of systems intended to go through the depot in a given year.
Evidence: Volume I, President's Budget Justification Book, provides a display which shows the Budgeted (quantities and dollars) for selected weapon systems and equipment, estimated inductions, actual completions, and carryover. Volume II of the Justification Book shows required and deferred workload.
Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?
Explanation: In fiscal year 2003, the Army initiated actions to audit inductions and completions of selected weapon systems/equipment undergoing depot maintenance. Additional weapon systems/equipment (high priority and/or high dollar value) will continue to be added in the coming years. The Army also routinely works with audit organizations to request audits on specific areas of interest or concern.
Evidence: The Army is working to improve the current metrics for depot maintenance. All relevant costs are displayed in Volume I of the Justification Book, Section IV Performance Criteria and Evaluation Summary, of the President's Budget. The Army also uses the Army Workload and Performance System (AWPS), an earned value management system, to analyze maintenance depot performance at the work order and commodity level. Further evidence of Army actions to correct deficiencies can be seen in audit recommendations and responses for which the Army commits to action.
|Section 2 - Strategic Planning||Score||100%|
|Section 3 - Program Management|
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: Army conducts monthly, quarterly, and annual reviews of all depot maintenance weapon systems/equipment during the year of execution. As defined in Army Regulation 750-1, the Depot Maintenance Execution Council (DMEC) is conducted by AMC, which then reports to the Depot Maintenance Corporate Board (DMCB). The DMCB holds meetings as required to highlight and resolve problems during the execution year.
Evidence: Slide presentations with execution data for all Depot programs, including the rebuild Recapitalization program, are prepared and presented at the quarterly DMEC. The DMCB reviews programs which are at risk and makes decisions to improve program performance and adjust changing priorities. Defense Finance & Accounting Service (DFAS) execution reports are also reviewed monthly and at mid-year by HQDA to ensure funding is being executed efficiently.
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: Army Commands, Program Executive Offices (PEO), partners, contractors, and program managers are held accountable for execution of approved Depot Maintenance Programs through monthly, quarterly, and annual reviews of depot maintenance progress against goals.
Evidence: Army conducts monthly, quarterly, and annual reviews of all depot maintenance weapon systems/equipment during the year of execution. All program partners are held accountable by various means: Civilian/military commanders are held accountable through performance standards; partners and contractors are held accountable through contractual limitations. Each Service is also required under Title 10 USC 2466 to report annually on the actual execution of depot maintenance dollars.
Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?
Explanation: Army Commands and Program Executive Offices (PEO) report depot maintenance budget execution through DFAS and as part of the DMEC/DMCB process. Army Commands/PEO civilian and military commanders responsible for resources are required to obligate funds in accordance with Fiscal Law. Funding may be adjusted in the year of execution to reflect real world priorities.
Evidence: The President's Budget submission for the Army requires previous years' execution data and explanation of discrepancies between executed and appropriated dollars. The Army uses DFAS execution reports to review reported obligations for programs.
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: The Army Depots have embraced practices commonly used in the private sector to improve speed, efficiency, precision, and accuracy and continuously reviews its processees to avoid costs and reduce cycle time. Furthemore, the use of temporary and term employees reduces overhead costs for personnel and employees are cross-trained on several systems for flexibility in workload execution.
Evidence: The Army Depots have established efficiency programs such as Lean Six Sigma which seek to improve the manufacturing process. These efforts are tracked weekly, monthly, and annually at the Army level. The Army also effectively uses overtime, and temporary and term employees to respond to increased workload.
Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?
Explanation: The Army works with the other Services to leverage comparative advantage possessed by its depots and is, therefore, the source of repair for equipment from other services.
Evidence: Every year the Army performs depot maintenance for each of the other Services, like helicopter work for the Navy and Air Force, and communication and electronics equipment for the Air Force. Throughout the year the Army also convenes Equipping and Redistribution Conferences so that all stakeholders participate in coordinated decisions on equipment fill from new procurement, redistribution, or from depot level maintenance. In 2006, the Army began a series of Weapon System Reviews for its Acquisition Category (ACAT) 1 programs which synchronized procurement, modernization and sustainment efforts for each system.
Does the program use strong financial management practices?
Explanation: The Defense Department's financial management weaknesses are well-documented, and notwithstanding efforts to improve it, the Department has yet to obtain an unqualified audit opinion. While the Army does use a variety of budgetary reports and financial data designed to track the status of specific activities within the Depot Maintenance program, it does not have audit reports demonstrating that the program is free from internal weaknesses.
Evidence: While no reports or audits specifically cite the Army's Depot Maintenance program for material financial weakness, none of them specifically looked at that aspect of the program. Given the underlying weakness of DoD's overall financial management practices, we expect component programs to exhibit similar results.
Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?
Explanation: The Department of the Army has directed the Army Materiel Command to conduct a senior level review of the Depot Maintenance Program. The chief of army logistics will review the report.
Evidence: As defined in AR 750-1, the Army has established the Depot Maintenance Executive Council (DMEC) and the Depot Maintenance Corporate Board (DMCB) to provide an avenue to identify, resolve and provide solutions to emergent issues within the program at both the senior Army and working levels. Further evidence of Army actions to correct deficiencies can be seen in audit recommendations and responses for which the Army commits to action.
|Section 3 - Program Management||Score||86%|
|Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability|
Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?
Explanation: The Army continues to send units into battle with weapons systems and other equipment that are reliable and ready for the rigors of combat. This is largely, although not entirely, a reflection of a successful Depot Maintenance program that provides high quality refurbished equipment to unit commanders. That said, Army leadership continues to closely monitor equipment readiness as the strains of the GWOT become more apparent.
Evidence: The Army's Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3 (Operations) establishes priorities for the depot maintenance program. These priorities are developed by specific pieces of equipment and the capability that equipment provides to the Combatant Commander. By producing this priority equipment on time, the depots are supplying Army units with the equipment they need to accomplish each mission. Therefore, the key performance metric compares planned production for the Army's most critical warfighting systems with actual production. By producing according to plan and priority, the depot maintenance performing activities are supporting the materiel readiness of Army weapon systems, which in turn supports unit readiness.
Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?
Explanation: The Depot Maintenance Program achieves the goals established by the Army's Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3 (Operations). These goals are consistent with a level of effort required to maintain materiel readiness.
Evidence: Depot Maintenance funding priorities have worked to sustain our warfighting readiness. Evidence of this is reflected by the readiness of our troops in both Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. The Army's Deputy Chief of Staff, G-3 (Operations) establishes priorities for the depot maintenance program. These priorities are developed by specific pieces of equipment and the capability that equipment provides to the Combatant Commander. By producing this priority equipment on time, the depot maintenance performing activities are supplying Army units with the equipment they need to accomplish each mission. Therefore, the key performance metric compares planned production for the Army's most critical warfighting systems with actual production. By producing according to plan and priority, the depot maintenance performing activities are supporting the materiel readiness of Army weapon systems, which in turn supports unit readiness.
Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?
Explanation: The Army continues its effort to improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of its Depot Maintenance program by adapting practices from the private sector (Lean Six Sigma). In addition, the Army has established partnerships that result in greater private sector investment in facilities and equipment, better facility utilization, reduced cost of ownership, workforce integration, and more efficient business processes. However, the army has not quantified specific improvements.
Evidence: The Army has established over 60 partnerships between the Army's depots and private industry that have led to improved reliability in Army equipment.
Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?
Explanation: The specific requirements of the Army's Depot Maintenance program -- repairing and overhauling ground combat systems is unique. However, the program does compare favorably to the Navy and Air Force Depot Maintenance programs which have a similar mission.
Evidence: Readiness/mission capable rates for all services remain high, even as the GWOT puts additional burdens on the force.
Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?
Explanation: The Department of Defense Inspector General, General Accountability Office and the Army Audit Agency continue to review and analyze this program on a recurring basis. The GAO released reports in May 2004 and June 2005 that noted some management weaknesses. DoD concurred with the recommended fixes to the problems noted.
Evidence: Audit reports conducted on a recurring basis provide insight into processes and corrective actions to be taken. The Army also routinely works with these organizations to request audits on specific areas of interest or concern. Further evidence of Army actions to correct identified deficiencies can be seen in audit recommendations and responses for which the Army commits to action. Each response includes the specific actions that will be taken as well as a timeframe in which the actions will be completed. The Army Audit Agency and the General Accountability Office then conduct follow-on audits where the status of those commitments is evaluated. If the timelines for implementation of a recommendation have changed, a new date is established until each audit recommendation is implemented and the audit can be formally closed. No material weaknesses are identified against the Army's depot maintenance program.
|Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability||Score||80%|