26. Infrastructure and OperationsAdvancing the interests of the United States, protecting its citizens abroad, assisting foreign tourists and business representatives visiting the United States, and assisting U.S. business representatives abroad require a modern, robust diplomatic readiness platform. This platform includes a worldwide network of safe, secure, functional and appropriate facilities for State Department employees and those of other U.S. Government agencies, the provision of a variety of administrative services, and a financial management infrastructure that supports the resource requirements of the Department of State.
Administrative Programs: The Bureau of Administration is responsible for managing Department of State domestic real property and for providing innovative and responsive administrative services worldwide in support of both ongoing and emergency operations.
Diplomatic Security: The Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the security and law enforcement arm of the Department of State, is dedicated to providing a secure environment for the conduct of American diplomacy worldwide. The U.S. presence abroad, particularly in this unstable period, requires our sustained commitment to protect American personnel, information and facilities.
Financial Management: To enhance its financial management capabilities, the Department recently integrated and aligned its strategic, budget, and performance planning and execution activities. Headed by the Department’s Chief Financial Officer, the Bureau of Resource Management (RM), consolidating the former Bureaus of Financial Management and Planning (FMP), a portion of the Office of Management, Policy and Planning and the Office of Resources, Plans and Policy (S/RPP), builds and maintains the structures which support strategic and program planning and budgeting for U.S. Foreign Assistance Programs and for State Department programs and operations. The Bureau provides financial services to all Department entities and to most agencies overseas.
Overseas Buildings Operations: The Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO), formerly the Office of Foreign Buildings Operations (FBO), ensures that U.S. Diplomatic and Consular Missions abroad are provided with safe, secure and functional facilities to assist them in achieving the foreign policy objectives of the United States. OBO is under the leadership of a Director/Chief Operating Officer who instituted a new strategy in FY ’01 with a broad range of initiatives to improve overall organizational performance.
Raise security at all facilities, even those traditionally considered lower threat.
The global threat environment was radically altered following the U.S. embassy bombings in Africa in August 1998 and the events of
September 11, 2001. Since 1998, the Department has made significant strides in strengthening existing programs addressed by the FY '99 Emergency Security Amendment, and we are now strengthening our domestic programs.
The Department operates and maintains 13,000 diplomatic, consular, housing and support facilities in over 255 global locations. Domestically, State owns or operates 32 facilities in metropolitan Washington, D.C. and in 48 other U.S. locations. We also operate three regional financial offices worldwide (Paris, France; Charleston, SC; and Bangkok, Thailand) which are essential to providing critical financial support to our Embassies and Consulates around the world. The Department of State’s Diplomatic Security bureau manages security programs at all of these locations to protect U.S. Government employees from terrorism and crime (except personnel under the command of a U.S. area military commander), and to protect classified and sensitive information from being compromised.
To date, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security has completed 90 % of the security upgrade projects begun under the Emergency Security Amendment. Only three of our initial projects (chemical/biological countermeasures, X-ray equipment, and technical security upgrades) will continue as scheduled beyond FY ’02. Our security improvements implemented as a result of the embassy bombings have created a firm foundation upon which the Department may build its long-term security posture. This strategy encompasses sustaining programs that provide enhanced security measures, hiring and supporting additional security personnel, and expanding the capital building program based on an assessment of requirements to meet global terrorist threats. To address the conclusions of the Accountability Review Board, funding was appropriated in FY ’01 to extend activities begun with emergency supplemental funding and to launch a comprehensive perimeter security program. This funding has supported our programs to reduce our physical vulnerabilities and to actively continue defensive countermeasures to help thwart attacks or mitigate their effects.
Having Missions and employees overseas is vital to accomplishing our national objectives and we will always operate at some degree of risk. Supporting ongoing programs to review and implement security upgrades and deploy effective countermeasures will protect our employees and information and ensure a vigilant, proactive stance against global terrorist and other security threats.
Safeguard all classified and sensitive information overseas and in domestic facilities from compromise.
The safeguarding of information is a DS responsibility involving myriad diverse programs. To accomplish our Mission program goals, national security information must be discussed - at meetings in secure conference rooms and on secure telephones, processed and stored on computers, preserved and communicated on paper documents, and carried inside the minds of our employees. The target goals for FY ‘01 included increasing the number of cleared employees who have received an annual security briefing. Over 25,000 employees have been briefed worldwide. In addition, all newly hired employees have received a security briefing.
In protecting our IT assets, we were unable to fully implement our network intrusion detection program to protect the Department’s open network at all locations abroad by the end of FY ’01. The creation of additional sub-networks at posts abroad, which did not exist during site surveys, pushed back the original completion date. The additional units, coupled with our diversion of resources to address the Attack on America, moved our completion date abroad to the second quarter of FY ‘02. However, the domestic network intrusion project is 87% complete, far exceeding the original schedule for installation and implementation.
Another integral part of the counterintelligence effort is to reduce the potential counterintelligence and suitability vulnerabilities through our personnel security investigations of potential new employees and the periodic employee investigative update program under Executive Order 12968. The Department workforce, which is dispersed throughout the United States and more than 160 other countries, is sizable. Maintaining a vigorous personnel security investigative program of this level of complexity and scope is a challenging task. However, the target for FY ’01 was met and the FY ’02 budget addresses the strengthening of counterintelligence programs.
Protect employees working in Department of State domestic facilities and designated foreign dignitaries within U.S from physical harm.
A worldwide security program cannot focus exclusively abroad, but must also encompass domestic programs to fulfill the global security mission. The need to increase security for domestic facilities has risen dramatically as a priority. Domestically, DS special agents are critical to sustaining the long-term, global security effort to thwart terrorists and other criminal activity. Uniformed security personnel provide building access controls and increased perimeter security. In FY ’01, we began Phase 1 in upgrading our Access Control System (ACS), with the issuance of 150 identification badges with Smart Card computer chips for final pilot testing and acceptance.
The Shatter Resistant Window Film (SRWF) project goals for the fiscal year were not fully achieved although progress was made. Of nine buildings scheduled, we completed two of our most critical buildings in FY ’01 and anticipate completing two more in FY ’02 and the remaining five by the end of FY ’04.
Diplomatic Security faces simultaneous requirements of strengthening the security postures of our missions abroad while domestically supporting anti-terrorism measures and providing protection to foreign and U.S. dignitaries in the United States. Our performance target was met and no protectee suffered physical harm while under Diplomatic Security protection.
Continue implementation of the worldwide security upgrade program started with the FY ’99 Emergency Security Appropriations Act.
The Department continues to successfully complete security upgrade projects at posts abroad. The Bureau for Overseas Buildings Operations met a primary FY ’01 performance target by utilizing outside contractors and Department and post assets to complete 315 security upgrade projects. In addition, the Department has committed or obligated 97 percent of the $41.9 million provided for the acquisition of security setback properties in order to enhance the physical security of posts abroad. In FY ’01, 117 properties at 30 posts were acquired, and setback acquisitions were in progress at five more posts at the end of the fiscal year.
Expeditiously relocate U.S. Government staff into safe, secure, functional facilities.
As noted in the Overseas Presence Advisory Panel (OPAP) Report, the vast majority of facilities abroad do not meet security standards. The Panel indicated that many of the Department’s facilities abroad are also decrepit, overcrowded, antiquated, deteriorating and “shabby.” When these facilities cannot be made safe, secure or functional through physical security upgrades, rehabilitation, or by other means, such as purchase of adjacent property to increase setback, they must be replaced. In FY ’01, six sites were acquired, five design or construction efforts were initiated, and three construction projects were completed. We were unable to start three projects due to the timing of funding approval from the Congress.
Extend, through strategic and timely rehabilitation, the useful lives of our overseas facilities and enhance their functionality.
Because the average age of the Department’s overseas buildings is about 40 years, many of their systems are exceeding their beneficial life expectancies. OBO is working hard to extend the beneficial life of existing facilities through timely and cost-effective maintenance, repair, and major rehabilitation work. As a prerequisite to its becoming a results-based organization, OBO began employing many initiatives to improve organizational performance and outyear planning during the second half of FY ’01. One initiative involved the creation of a Long-Range Overseas Buildings Plan, during the final quarter of the fiscal year, which will promote rational replacement and maintenance of our facilities. The plan, which includes both new office buildings and major rehabilitation projects scheduled for the FY ’02–’07 period, was coordinated with customers and stakeholders, incorporating their input during formulation. This initiative to fix accountability requires the adoption of a “life-cycle” project execution mentality for all projects.
Ensure the Department’s domestic facilities are cost-effective and energy-efficient, and enable employees to perform their duties.
The Bureau of Administration is implementing a comprehensive domestic facilities program that contributes to greater productivity, employee retention, and operational effectiveness. The efforts includes the multiyear consolidation and renovation of office space in Foggy Bottom and heightened emphasis on the professional management of facilities owned or leased by the Department in the United States.
In FY ’01 target milestones were achieved in partnership with GSA in the initial phase of the renovation of the Harry S Truman headquarters building. These milestones included the beginning of demolition work in the “Old State” wing of the building and the August 2001 opening of the basement level “Foggy Bottom” employee concourse. In addition, 63 renovation projects were completed to colocate the offices of the Department of State and the former USIA and ACDA staffs in Foggy Bottom by the end of FY ’04. To date, 88 of the 122 planned projects have been completed.
The joint GSA/State Department project to construct a 21st century building for the U.S. Mission to the United Nations on United Nations Plaza partially achieved the target set for FY ’01. The architectural design for a modern, secure, energy-efficient building is nearly complete, but the schedule for construction has been delayed by at least one year because the Department has not yet received funding for its contribution to the project. The delay in construction funding has affected the timing of a move by USUN staff to interim office space. At best, that move is now scheduled for mid-2003.
Other major projects underway that are key to the effective management of Department of State activities include the design and construction at the Charleston Regional Center which will consolidate the majority of the Department’s domestic and worldwide financial services, and the lease of a building in Northern Virginia to consolidate staff of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security.
Beyond these consolidation, renovation and construction projects, the Department of State has made a commitment to energy efficiency in all State-owned and operated facilities. The Florida Regional Center and the National Foreign Affairs Training Center are both Federal Energy Solar Showcase facilities. The proposed new USUN building is designed for energy efficiency, and many other energy efficiency and alternative energy efforts are under way.
Obtain funding to achieve the Department’s foreign policy and diplomatic readiness goals and effectively administer those funds.
In the summer of 2001, for the first time, the Deputy Secretary of State personally conducted 16 hour-long hearings in which the leaders of every Bureau presented their strategic and performance goals, then defended and prioritized their FY ’03 budget requests. The budget office held some 30 follow-up hearings at a more detailed level.
The Department of State also has been an active participant in interagency groups concerned with improving and better integrating budgets and performance plans. In April 2001, through its representation on the Budget Officers' Advisory Council and on the Advisory Committee of the OPM-sponsored Interagency GPRA Interest Group, the Department launched eight interagency working groups. These working groups improved interagency coordination on a variety of issues, leading to greater willingness to share important budget and planning data with State Department elements. They focused principally on better employment of existing Department of Defense and intelligence community networks to improve communications and coordination with other members of the foreign affairs community, while improving information security, budget coordination, and access to IC- or DOD-purchased commercial products. Four of the eight groups identified requirements for new or continued resources. Funding requests were integrated into State’s FY ’02 and ’03 budget builds.
Strategies to incorporate data available through the Department’s Global Database (GDB) into managers’ decisionmaking processes worldwide was successfully implemented. The (GDB) was used to perform ad hoc analyses of certain post’s data, to produce a Trendline Analysis for FY ’98-’00, and to provide an analysis by region of the impact of Security Supplemental funding on International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS) customer agencies. GDB data was also used by regional bureaus as a basis for making recommendations on the distribution of the exchange-rate surplus fund and by the ISC to analyze the potential impact of increased ICASS targets for infrastructure replacement.
Demonstrate improved financial management and accountability.
The FY ’00 Financial Statements received an “Unqualified” opinion and were issued by the March 1, 2001 due date. The FY ’00 Accountability Report was signed and submitted in March 2001, including Performance Plan data. The Department implemented the strategies and tactics highlighted for financial management in State's performance plan and pursued better integration of performance goals and budget requirements.
In 2001, the Department continued to maintain substantial compliance with the SGL and Federal accounting standards. However, as indicated in the Independent Auditor’s Report and as agreed by State management, the Department is not in substantial compliance with the following Federal financial management systems requirements: timely and useful information, including managerial cost accounting information; systems security; and business continuity/contingency planning. The November 2001 Remediation Plan identifies 12 initiatives to be accomplished by the end of 2003 that will result in substantial compliance. During 2001, the Department continued to make significant progress toward implementing the Remediation Plan.
The expansion of the Charleston Complex and integration of overseas and domestic financial services, begun in fiscal year 2001, is designed to achieve economies of scale and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department's financial operations and systems. Since 1991, one of the Department’s highest priority financial management goals has been to achieve a fully integrated worldwide financial management operational system.
Worldwide implementation of the integrated overseas financial system—the Regional Financial Management System (RFMS)—began in November 1, 2001, with the conversion of Embassy Lima as the first serviced post at Charleston. The second Charleston Financial Services Complex Building will be ready for occupancy by April 2002. Staffing for Charleston to consolidate FSC Paris and certain domestic operations is underway.
Provide domestic and overseas employees and other public customers with needed goods and services.
The Department established the Center for Administrative Innovation, reporting to the Assistant Secretary for Administration, to seek better ways of delivering administrative support to our people on the front lines overseas. We are implementing recommendations in three areas: E-Government, Quality of Life, and Professionalism. We are also reaching out to other government agencies and private sector organizations for practices we can emulate.
The Bureau of Administration focused significant effort in FY ’01 on e-Government initiatives including the Statebuy Interactive Platform for e-Commerce and development of the Integrated Logistics Management System (ILMS) for worldwide use by Department of State offices in the areas of supply and inventory, transportation, and acquisitions management. Since the inception of the Statebuy Interactive Platform (SIP) in May 1996, a global cost avoidance of over $3.73 million has been generated and a return on investment of approximately 19 to 1 has been achieved.
The number of solicitation and related documents posted on SIP in FY ’01 for overseas and domestic offices exceeded 150, a 50 percent increase over the previous fiscal year. The development of the Integrated Logistics Management System included selection of commercial off-the-shelf products, the implementation of pilots, and 50 percent completion of the ILMS design.
In FY ’01, the Department of State became the first U.S. Government agency to electronically transfer permanent government records to the National Archives and Records Administration, sending over 10,000 unclassified telegrams from the “State Archiving System.” The Department receives some 2,000 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests annually. However, we have not had sufficient staffing over the years to keep pace with the requests, creating a consistent backlog of FOIA requests. Given the importance of meeting our statutory obligations and of responding to the public in a timely manner, the Department provided 23 additional full-time employees to the Bureau of Administration in the third quarter of
FY ’01 to eliminate the backlog in FY ’02 and FY ’03. Shortly after
FY ’01, candidates requiring security clearances were selected for a number of these positions, placing the Department in a better position to meet the goal of eliminating the backlog. This is an initial step in our effort to match the workforce to the level of work.
The Department has embraced the use of alternative fuel and natural gas vehicles for the domestic motor vehicle fleet, by procuring natural gas shuttle bases and alternative fuel sedans. We have exceeded our goal for energy efficient vehicles, in that they now comprise 84% of the applicable domestic vehicle inventory.
|
|
Diplomatic Readiness – Infrastructure and Operations
(Diplomatic Security - Overseas Security) |
Performance Goal # |
|
|
Strategic Goal |
|
Establish and maintain infrastructure and operating capacities that enable employees to pursue policy objectives and respond to crises. |
|
|
|
All U.S. Government personnel on official duty abroad and under the authority of a Chief of Mission perform their duties in support of diplomatic operations in safety from serious injury due to terrorism, political violence, crises, or crime. |
|
Performance Goal |
|
Security for formerly lower threat posts is heightened to meet standards used at higher threat posts. |
|
FY ’01 Results as of 9/30/01
The protection of life overseas is the first priority of the Bureau of Diplomatic Security. We continue to focus on completing and sustaining the work related to the worldwide security upgrades which has resulted in the upgrading of security at every U.S. Mission.
We achieved our target goal of completing 90% of the remaining projects under the Emergency Security Budget Amendment.
FY ’01 highlights:
· Surveillance Detection Programs put in place at 209 posts;
· Vehicle inspections procedures institutionalized worldwide. We achieved this by adding guards and equipment to 90 formerly low-threat posts.
· 662 bomb detection equipment devices deployed, and training provided to 225 post.
· perimeter guards added at 124 posts to conduct outer perimeter sweeps.
· 871 state-of-the-art walk-through metal detectors and 193 x-ray units installed at 223 posts.
1. Residential security including physical security and shatter-resistant window film funding provided to secure all overseas USG employee residences.
· Technical security equipment including VCR and camera control switches installed at 187 posts.
1. More than $15 million in new equipment deployed for security engineers overseas to counter technical attacks;
1. Imminent danger notification systems installed at 200 posts;
1. 40 new security officer positions abroad established and filled.
1. First-responder equipment and training deployed worldwide in the chemical biological program;
· The mobile security team completed 123 training missions. |
|
FY ’01 Results as of 9/30/01 (cont’d)
FY ’01 and previous efforts have created a firm foundation for the Department to build its long-term security posture. Efforts continue as improvements are still needed. For security to remain effective, we must sustain programs such as local guards, physical security equipment, technical security support, armored vehicles, chemical biological programs, radio replacement, and the perimeter security upgrades.
Performance Measures:
Data has been verified and compiled quarterly both through our program managers and through cable traffic with posts to ensure deliverables and installation.
The performance indicators, mostly, are outcomes given the majority of projects are upgrades. The measures appear to be suitable for the projects underway.
Our Missions and employees must operate overseas and therefore, will always operate at some degree of risk. Continuing security upgrades and effective countermeasures programs is criticial to protecting our employees and information. |
|
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Baseline |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
· Percentage of 38 projects that have been completed.
· Percentage of posts with technical security equipment upgrades.
· Accountability Review Boards convened which finds that a serious injury, loss of life, or significant destruction at a U.S. Government Mission was due to inadequate security management or countermeasures.
· Number of Foreign Service nationals trained in crisis management. |
69%
4%
0
1,123 |
90%
36%
0
1,623 |
90%
36%
0
1,487
(Preliminary number) |
|
Country |
Worldwide |
|
Lead & Partners |
|
|
Verification: Data Source: DS Program Management Team Reports; CMT Enrollment Data
Data Storage: DS and Student Training Management System (STMS)
Frequency: Monthly |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diplomatic Readiness - Infrastructure and Operations
(Diplomatic Security - Information) |
Performance Goal # |
IO-01-02 |
|
Strategic Goal |
|
Strengthen the ability of the United States to achieve its international affairs goals and respond to crises through protection of effective and efficient information resource management and information systems. |
|
Outcome Desired |
|
The Department’s highest systems security priorities are being met and information systems security safeguards are in place for all major Department systems. |
|
Performance Goal |
|
|
|
FY ’01 Results as of 9/30/01
The protection of information is a DS responsibility involving a myriad of diverse programs. National security information is discussed at meetings in secure conference rooms or on secure telephones, processed, and stored on computers, preserved and communicated on paper documents, and carried inside the minds of our employees. Thus, a comprehensive information protection program includes many elements: personnel investigations for security clearances; courier protection for diplomatic pouches; construction security and access control equipment; counterintelligence investigations and briefings; and, computer security.
The efforts made to date in information security are just the beginning of a comprehensive information protection program. The counterintelligence mission has linkage to both personnel and technology. The integrity of our employees must be beyond reproach. The need to deploy technology to combat ever-increasing and sophisticated espionage is critical to protecting the Department and its people and this effort is underway.
· We met our target goal of cleared employees receiving security briefings. Over 25,000 employees have been briefed worldwide.
1. We did not meet our target for 100% installation of network intrusion detection systems for State’s Open Network at our Missions abroad although we did meet 66% of the target. Progress was slowed down partially by the Attacks on America and by the IRM “ALMA” effort which created additional subnets at posts that did not exist when site surveys were done. This increase in networks, in some cases, necessitated that more network intrusion detection system units be added, pushing back our original projections. The domestic project however reached 87% systems in place, exceeding the original projections.
2 Personnel periodic reinvestigations have remained at a 33% compliance with the 5-year Executive Order.
· Foreign Service National (FSN) participation in crisis management exercises was lower than anticipated As CMS training for locally engaged staff is established on a regional/post basis, the number of FSNs at post and/or how many of them take the training is determined by the post/regional bureau. Although FY ’01 enrollment statistics are not fully rectified, the actual attendance figures could be higher. |
|
FY ’01 Results as of 9/30/01 (cont’d)
Performance Measures:
Data has been compiled through actual counts and computer-generated reports of briefings, investigations, and equipment upgrades that have occurred.
The data are statistical counts that are reliable.
The comprehensive information protection program underway needs to continue in order to thwart espionage efforts targeted at Department facilities and personnel. In addition, tripling the number of periodic reinvestigations to attain a rate in compliance with the Executive order will help to limit our vulnerabilities with the compromise of national security information and ensure the integrity of our workforce. We are considering as an additional performance measure for the strengthening our information security mission to track progress on upgrading our access control systems domestically. |
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
|
80% |
90% |
92% |
|
Percentage of network intrusion detection systems for OpenNet in place.
· Abroad.
· Domestic. |
40%
50% |
100%
75% |
66%
87% |
|
|
33% |
33% |
33% |
|
Verification |
Source: DS Records
Storage: DS
Validation: The total percentage of compliance with requirements. |
Countries |
Worldwide |
|
Complementary U.S. Government Activities |
U.S. Government security agencies |
|
Lead Agency |
Department of State (IRM, Diplomatic Security; Bureau of Administration; Overseas Buildings Operations) |
|
Partners |
NSA, CIA, and other security agencies |
|
National Interest |
Diplomatic Readiness - Infrastructure and Operations
|
Performance Goal # |
IO-01-03 |
|
Strategic Goal |
|
Establish and maintain infrastructure and operating capacities that enable employees to pursue policy objectives and respond to crises. |
|
Outcome Desired |
|
No employee suffers physical harm at a Department of State facility due to inadequate physical security or access controls and no incidents occur that result in bodily harm to a DS protectee. |
|
Performance Goal |
|
All employees working in Department of State domestic facilities and designated foreign dignitaries within the United States are safe from physical harm. |
|
|
FY ’00 Baseline |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
|
0% |
20% |
20% |
|
Percentage of Level V and IV facilities with shatter resistant window film |
0% |
50% |
22% |
|
Number of protectees that suffer physical harm while under DS protection |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Country |
United States |
|
Lead & Partners |
Department of State: Diplomatic Security, D.C. Government, General Services Administration |
|
Verification |
|
Verification
Data Source: DS Records
Data Storage: DS
Frequency: quarterly
Validation: Comparison of need to actual completion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Interest |
Diplomatic Readiness - Infrastructure and Operations
(Overseas & Domestic Facilities -Overseas Property) |
Performance Goal # |
IO-02-01 |
|
Strategic Goal |
|
Establish and maintain infrastructure and operating capacities that enable employees to pursue policy objectives and respond to crises. |
|
Outcome Desired |
|
Overseas facilities under the Department of State's stewardship meet physical security standards and technical security requirements, and allow State and other U.S. Government agencies employees to perform their duties safely. |
|
Performance Goal |
|
Continue the worldwide security upgrade program started with the FY ’99 Emergency Security Appropriations Act.
Expeditiously relocate U.S. Government staff into safe, secure, and functional facilities.
Extend, through strategic and timely rehabilitation, the useful lives of facilities and enhance their functionality. |
|
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01
The Secretary of State brought in new leadership, during the second half of the FY ’01, in order to improve the performance of what was formerly the Office of Foreign Buildings Operations (FBO). The new Director and Chief Operating Officer (COO) called for the establishment of a results-based organization now known as the Bureau of Overseas Buildings Operations (OBO). The new OBO has a clear mission, measurable goals, customer service standards, and targets for improved performance. The new COO has implemented a number of innovative techniques, some of which are discussed below. These include assigning specific responsibility to managers and fixing accountability while allowing each manager to be proactive, success-oriented, innovative, and flexible.
FY ’01 represented a change in strategy laid out by OBO’s new Director/Chief Operating Officer. As the strategy has only been implemented for a short time (during latter half of FY ’01), FY ’01 performance was only modestly affected but we anticipate improved results in FY ’02. The new strategy comprises a number of initiatives. One of the most important was the creation, during the summer of FY ’01, of a Long-Range Overseas Building Plan (LROBP) covering the FY ’02–’07 period. The Plan represents a “roadmap” that provides OBO employees, customers (e.g., posts, agencies) and stakeholders (e.g., OMB, Congress) the capability to know the direction the organization is going with respect to major construction and rehabilitation projects and to provide input into the plan as it is updated annually. This initiative to get all customers and stakeholders “on the same page” should better ensure that funding and other requirements, outside the control of OBO, are not cause for delays in future projects.
Other accomplishments include: the appointment of an Industry Advisory Panel: placement of every construction project on a “fast track,”; enforced discipline over the entire facility life-cycle process; solicition of the best U.S. vertical contractors; and enhancement of personnel benefits to improve and reward performance.
Our performance goals were partially achieved during the FY ’01 performance period.
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01 (cont’d)
FY ’01 Highlights:
· Five construction projects (Abuja Chancery, Dar es Salaam AID Building, Luanda Chancery, Sofia Compound, and Yerevan Chancery) entered either the design or construction phase during FY ’01.
· Three remaining projects (Kampala AID, Nairobi AID, and Abidjan Chancery) were ready for award in FY ’01, but funding approval from the Congress did not occur in FY ’01.
· Three construction project completions targeted for FY ’01 were, in fact, completed (Kampala Chancery, Beijing Chancery Annex, and Kuwait City Staff Housing). Another target, the Doha Newly Acquired Building, was occupied by the post 3 weeks after the end of FY ’01. The fifth project, the Pristina Interim Office Building, was completed in FY ’00, earlier than anticipated.
· Six of eight major rehabilitation projects were completed in FY ’01. Not completed in FY ’01 was the Cairo project (Chancery cooling tower) because of a requirement for an additional survey to ensure that the floor would safely accommodate the new equipment to be installed. The Vienna (UNVIE fitout) project encountered shipment problems delaying the overall project schedule.
· Designs were initiated on three of six major rehabilitation performance targets during the fiscal year. Not completed, as of the end of FY ’01, was the Istanbul (fresco restoration) project, which is awaiting evaluation of costs to bring the entire building up to standards. The Brussels (Chancery rehabilitation) project was not accomplished because Congress desired that the funding be devoted to another project in the FY ’01 financial plan. The Chengdu (staff housing rehabilitation) project was still in the survey stage at the end of the fiscal year, with design scheduled for FY ’02.
Performance Measures:
The performance targets have been adjusted in the FY ’03 Bureau Performance Plan (BPP) and the Department Performance Plan to tie our performance to the LROBP, and to those performance measures developed by the new organization earlier this summer. The targets also compensate for recent OMB adjustments in the FY ’03 budget. The performance measures and the LROBP set enhanced performance targets that OBO is capable of attaining under its new leadership.
Each of the OBO operational entities engage in hundreds of activities that contribute to outcomes that provide safe, secure, and functional overseas facilities. The FY ’01 performance targets (outputs) contained in the DPP and discussed above, although not fully attained in all cases, contributed meaningfully to the overall outcomes desired, i.e. improving the safety and security at our overseas diplomatic facilities. The measures included in the plan are suitable generally in providing the best information regarding strategy implementation progress and goal achievement. Some of the measures, such as security upgrade projects completed, are obviously proxies used to assess the level of security (outcomes) being attained in our existing overseas facilities.
OBO has more than 100 performance indicators, of which only a few are carried into the DPP. These measures, at the OBO division/program level, are an essential precursor to achieving dramatic improvements in the larger set of outcomes that OBO seeks. The performance measures also ensure that managers and their staff fully understand what is expected and further assist in fixing accountability for performance.
OBO, under new leadership, organization, and strategies, should be able to meet or exceed its future performance targets and deliver performance that far surpasses previous years. OBO has enhanced its communications with customers and stakeholders—through COO briefings to Members of Congress, OMB, ambassadors, other agencies, and private industry officials and by continuous cables to posts and the LROBP—to let them know what we expect to achieve and how we are performing. |
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Status of Physical Security Upgrade Program:
· Number of projects completed.
· Number of posts with added security setback. |
636 projects
26 posts with added setback acquired or under negotiations |
10 posts with added setback acquired or under negotiations. |
315 projects
4 posts with added setback acquired, 5 posts with setback in progress |
|
Status of New Construction Projects:
· Acquire/obtain options for sites.
· Initiate design/construction.
· Complete construction. |
8 projects
4 projects |
5-8 projects
8 projects
5 projects |
6 NOB sites acquired, 4 under contract
5 projects initiated
3 projects completed |
|
Status of major rehabilitation projects:
· Complete Construction.
· Initiate Designs. |
11 projects
13 projects |
8 projects
6 projects |
6 projects
3 projects |
|
Verification |
Source: M/OBO Monthly Project Summary Report; Annual Global Condition Survey Reports; Monthly Construction Security Management Reports, Director/COO Project Performance Review (PPR) Meetings
Storage: Department. of State, Overseas Buildings Operations files
Validation: Monthly and ad hoc status meetings |
|
Countries |
Worldwide |
|
Complementary U.S. Government Activities (Non-Department of State) |
Department of Defense, Intelligence Community, U.S. Agency for International Development, Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of Justice, Treasury Department . |
|
Lead Agency |
Department of State |
|
Partners |
Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), geographic bureaus, M/P, Department of Defense, Intelligence Community, USAID, Foreign Commercial Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, Department of Justice, Treasury Department. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
National Interest |
Diplomatic Readiness - Infrastructure and Operations (Domestic Property) |
Performance Goal # |
IO-02-02 |
|
Strategic Goal |
|
Establish and maintain infrastructure and operating capacities that enable employees to pursue policy objectives and respond to crises. |
|
Outcome Desired |
|
Enhanced organizational effectiveness to meet Mission requirements worldwide. |
|
Performance Goal |
|
The Department of State’s domestic facilities are cost-effective and energy efficient and enable employees to perform their duties. |
|
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01
The Department of State is responsible for the safety and efficiency of its domestic facilities in metropolitan Washington, D.C. and in other U.S. locations. This includes delegation from the GSA for the building operations of the Harry S Truman Building and Blair House, and for owned and/or operated facilities throughout the United States. Current projects include renovations for the Foreign Affairs consolidation, planning with GSA for a new USUN Mission building in United Nations Plaza, and the multi-year renovation of the Truman building in partnership with GSA. The Columbia Plaza renovation is completed and the Navy Hill renovation is 97% complete. The Department is adopting energy management best practices and has joined EPA’s ENERGY STAR Partnership.
FY ’01 Highlights:
· Harry S Truman Headquarters Building renovation: Work continues on schedule in Phase I of the renovation. The basement-level “Foggy Bottom” complex was opened in the third quarter of FY ’01. It houses the U.S. Post Office, credit union, and other conveniences for employees, thus allowing the Department to either renovate or utilize the space vacated from the previous locations of these activities.
· Navy Hill Renovation - By September 30, 2001, the renovation was 97% complete, with 100% completion expected in January 2002. The renovation was delayed due to changes in the proposed occupants and their requirements.
· Lease of American Pharmaceutical Association (APhA) addition to house IIP and ECA staff from former USIA Headquarters: The APhA project to build an addition did not progress smoothly during FY ’01, because APhA had problems with GSA and the Interior Department/National Park Service on the issue of land disposal and transfer. The Department of State portion of the project has been estimated at $13.8 million. On July 31, 2001, the Department’s Bureau of Finance and Management Policy forwarded a portion of those funds ($5,350,000) to be in a position to fund DOS design and other costs. Due to the property transfer delay, the target for completing the space program planning is now FY ’02.
1. Foreign Affairs Consolidation: We exceeded our goal in terms of the number of renovations that were completed. Of the 122 renovations/moves needed to complete the consolidation, 88 are now done. We had estimated finishing 40 renovations in FY ’01 and actually completed 63.
1. USUN Construction: The completion schedule for a new USUN building has been delayed by one year because the Department has not yet been funded for its contribution to this effort in partnership with GSA. The Bureau of Administration provided 100% resubmission design comments to GSA shortly after the end of FY ‘01. The design is undergoing revisions based on review and the incorporation of security requirements. The Department is also requesting Interim Office Building funding for FY ’03. Therefore, the move to the interim facility cannot take place before the middle of 2003. GSA has received demolition funding in the FY ’02 budget. GSA has separately requested funds for new construction in the President’s FY ’03 budget request.
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01 (cont’d)
§ Capital Improvement Plan: The FY ‘03 Embassy Security, Construction, and Maintenance budget request includes funding for this important aspect of our comprehensive facilities strategy. The Plan addresses necessary, programmed improvements to Department of State-owned and -leased facilities.
· MBTU usage: Total consumption, according to the original set of facilities, almost met the 4% decrease goal of 317 MBTU. The preliminary estimates put the figure at 321.3 MBTU. However, with the addition of the Kentucky Consular Center, Columbia Plaza, and Charleston, the total FY ‘01 usage is closer to 353.2 MBTU (est.). The increase is also due to the doubling of the consumption of steam due to leaks while awaiting replacement of a valve that had to be manufactured.
Performance Measures:
The FY ’01 strategy and goals based on the Real Estate Master Plan as well as Federal energy efficiency goals, were appropriate. When adjustments had to be made on facilities schedules based on the needs of the Department (as in the case of the Navy Hill renovation), the impact on the long-term plan was negligible. Some capital improvements were able to be made with funds available, and the Department seeks to fund a formal Capital Improvement Plan through the FY ‘03 budget process. The Department continues to address energy efficiency requirements in all applicable facilities.
Performance goals, as a whole, were partially achieved. Facilities milestones not fully met were a result of changes in occupancy assignments, lack of funding, or delays beyond our control. The energy efficiency target, based on preliminary statistical information, was not met because of the doubling of the consumption of steam due to leaks while awaiting replacement of a valve that had to be manufactured.
We plan to adjust the target for the use of MegaBTUs in applicable facilities, since we have added facilities that are subject to federal energy goals.
Validation and Verification:
The strategy and performance targets were reviewed frequently and are consistent with the goal.
Data tracking is reliable and open to scrutiny. In many cases, there are multiple bureaus or U.S. Government agencies tracking progress against targeted objectives. |
|
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Status of Master Real Estate Plan based on approved milestones:
· Harry S Truman headquarters building -
Phase I status
B) Navy Hill -renovation completion
C) Lease of APhA addition to house IIP and ECA staff
from former USIA Headquarters |
A) Phase I -ongoing
B) Renovation ongoing |
A) Phase I ongoing
B) Completed
C) Planning space program (150,000 sf) |
A) Phase I on schedule
B) 97% complete; remainder to
be completed by 1/31/02.
C) To be completed in FY ’02 |
|
Status of Foreign Affairs Consolidation:
Number of scheduled moves and necessary renovations |
25 moves/renovations |
40 moves/renovations |
63 moves/renovations |
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Status of USUN Construction at United Nations Plaza:
A) Relocate USUN staff to leased interim office space
· Work closely with GSA on 2002
|
A) Search
B) 50% design level |
A) Locate interim office
space/ plan move
B) Design specs complete |
· On hold pending approval of
Department of State above-standard construction funding.
· 100% design submitted by GSA
on 10/19/01. |
|
Status of Capital Improvement Plan:
A) Percentage of design specs completed.
B) Percentage of planned projects completed. |
Dependent on requested funding. |
Dependent on requested funding. |
Unfunded. Requested again in the
FY ’03 ESC&M budget request. |
|
Facilities Readiness
Annual MBTU reduction rates |
330 MBTU
(3% reduction) |
317 MBTU
(4% reduction) |
321.3 MBTU (est.) for original facilities in the plan. Have since added Columbia Plaza, Kentucky Consular Center, and Charleston, SC Regional Center, bringing actual total to 353.2 (est.).
Figures pending final confirmation of usage. |
|
Verification |
Source: Numerous Department of State offices to include: Bureau of Administration: Office of Operations, Real Property Management, Facilities Management Services, and Overseas Buildings Operations; Other Federal Offices: General Services Administration and Department of Energy
Storage: Within DOS offices (A/OPR, A/EX, OBO)
Validation: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations, Assistant Secretary for Administration |
|
Country |
United States |
|
Complementary U.S. Government Activities Non-Department of State) |
General Services Administration, White House (Blair House), U.S. Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Secret Service, Patuxent Wildlife Refuge, NSA |
|
Lead Agency |
Department of State (Bureau of Administration) |
|
Partners |
Department of State -D/S, bureaus, General Services Administration, USUN, regional centers, White House for Blair House, local jurisdictions |
|
|
Diplomatic Readiness -Infrastructure and Operations
(Core Management Systems) |
Performance Goal # |
IO-03-01 |
|
Strategic Goal |
|
Establish and maintain infrastructure and operating capacities that enable employees to pursue policy objectives and respond to crises. |
|
Outcome Desired |
|
Effective budget preparation, allocation, and execution structures. |
|
Performance Goal |
|
Obtain funding to achieve all of the Department’s foreign policy and diplomatic readiness goals, effectively administering funds obtained. |
|
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01
The Financial Management and Planning bureau (FMP) implemented the strategies and tactics highlighted for financial management in State's performance plan and pushed for better integration of performance goals and budget requirements. The Department of State also has been an active participant in interagency groups concerned with improving and better integrating budgets and performance plans.
Strategy Implemented:
· In the summer of 2001, for the first time, the Deputy Secretary of State personally conducted 16 hour-long hearings in which the leaders of every bureau presented their strategic and performance goals, then defended and prioritized the resources they were requesting in the FY ‘03 budget. The budget office held some 30 follow-up hearings at a more detailed level. Further progress is delayed by congressional appropriators' insistence on traditional budget breakdowns by appropriation and program, rather than by strategic goals.
· FMP represents the Department in the Budget Officers' Advisory Council and on the Advisory Committee of the OPM-sponsored Interagency GPRA Interest Group. In April 2001, FMP launched eight interagency working groups approved by the Intelligence Resources Board. The working groups focused principally on better employment of existing DOD and Intelligence Community networks to improve communications and coordination with other members of the foreign affairs community, while improving information security, budget coordination, and access to Intelligence Community or DOD purchased commercial products. The working groups completed their findings and recommendations by late July 2001 with four of the eight having identified requirements for new or continued resources. Requests for funding were integrated into State’s FY ’02 and FY ’03 budgets by August 2001. All working groups improved interagency coordination on a variety of issues, leading to greater willingness to share important budget and planning data with State elements.
Goals Partially Achieved;.
· State's OMB, passback, and congressional budget submissions in FY ’01 met all deadlines, many of which were unique to this year of Presidential election and change of administration.
· The new Performance Plan (for FY ’03) created in FY ‘01 includes distribution by strategic goal of all resources covered by State's Budget in Brief for the State Department Appropriations Act, Migration Refugee Assistance and Emergency Refugee Migration Assistance.
· Significant progress was made concerning the status of joint program planning with national security community. However, internal coordination problems, insufficient funding, and resistance to change hampered implementation of some initiatives. Not all agencies were prepared to advocate State’s interests in
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01 (cont’d)
negotiations with third parties. Additionally, the September 11 attacks focused much U.S. Government attention on specific security concerns and related funding issues. Seven of eight working groups produced recommendations for improvements in the business process of State and other members of the foreign affairs community. Coordination among various members of the foreign affairs community was key to working group gains, findings, and recommendations.
Performance Measures:
The budget program indicator measures the timeliness of outputs of the budget office and the quality of State's annual performance plan which is an output as well. The joint program planning indicator measures outcome.
Data is verified through our program managers and through budget and planning process documentation.
Evaluations: No program evaluations in this area were completed in FY ’01. None are scheduled for FY ’02.
Customers, primarily the 30 plus bureaus of the Department, various commissions, OMB, and the Congress, can count on commitment and professionalism to make ever clearer sense and accountable linkage of State's purposes, goals, methods, and performance targets with the resources they require. |
|
FY ’99 Baseline |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Timeliness of Budgets |
Not timely |
All OMB, passback, and congressional submissions meet deadlines. |
All OMB, passback, and congressional submissions meet deadlines. |
This goal was successfully met, granting the adjustments that were made to most or all such deadlines. |
|
Department’s resources allocated by GPRA Plan goals |
|
75% (to be adjusted after calculation of base year percent). |
90% (to be adjusted after calculation of base year percent). |
This goal was achieved. |
|
|
Mission partners don’t appreciate need for common platforms. |
All national security organizations clear issue papers and set shared objectives. |
Interagency working groups pursue multiagency information sharing, program planning, and technology acquisition in Washington and at posts. |
Significant progress was made. Interagency working groups improved information sharing and program planning. Some coordination of technology acquisition demonstrated. |
|
Verification |
Source: Bureau Performance Plans, Department of State Performance Plan, and Decision Memoranda on joint planning
Storage: Department Records; Department Reports
Validation: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and Planning; Director, Office of Policy and Planning (M/P), Coordinator for Intelligence Resources and Planning |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Diplomatic Readiness - Infrastructure and Operations
(Core Management Systems -Financial Management Systems) |
Performance Goal # |
IO-03-02 |
|
Strategic Goal |
|
|
|
Outcome Desired |
|
A financial management infrastructure and operating capacity responsive to Departmental needs including effective financial management systems, financial policy development and implementation structures, and payment systems. |
|
Performance Goal |
|
|
|
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01
ICASS data from posts formed the basis for a series of analyses that were in turn used by the regional bureaus and ICASS customer agencies as a basis for making ICASS budget and resource allocation decisions. The FY ’00 Financial Statements were issued on time and received a “Unqualified” opinion. The FY ’00 Accountability Report was submitted on time and included Performance Plan data.
Strategy Implemented:
· EUR and NEA/SA Bureau Program Management Officers were trained by the ISC to use the ICASS Global Database (GDB) to perform ad hoc analyses of post data.
· The ISC produced a trendline analysis for FY ‘98-‘00 containing information about trends in service and costs during ICASS’ first three operational years.
· The ISC used the GDB to provide an analysis by region of the impact of Security Supplemental funding on ICASS customer agencies.
· Regional bureaus used data from the GDB as a basis for making recommendations on the distribution of the exchange-rate surplus fund.
· The ISC used GDB data to analyze the potential impact of increased ICASS targets for infrastructure replacement.
· Customer agencies used this as a basis for determining their agency’s affordability.
· Goal was achieved.
Verification and Validation:
With the exception of indicators associated with the global database and security orientation and training, the indicators applied to the performance of this goal measure output. The quality and reliability of data collection and analysis is increasing, particularly as it pertains to information on debt and credit card collections. A standard has been prescribed so that future targets will always be set and performance will always be measured using appropriate criteria which is identical.
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01 (cont’d)
Evaluations:
No program evaluations in this area were completed in FY ’01.
During the coming year stakeholders and customers can expect continued updating of the GDB in an accurate and timely manner. It is expected that information contained there will be increasingly used as the basis for making management decisions. Regional Bureaus will continue to receive direct access to the full database, and customer agencies will be given CD-ROM access to several key reports, which will encourage increased usage of the data.
Verification and Validation:
This budget program indicators measure the timeliness of outputs of the budget office and the quality of State's annual performance plan which is an output as well. The joint program planning indicator measures outcome.
|
Performance Indicator |
FY ’99 Baseline |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Audit opinion on previous year’s financial statement (ref: CFO Act) |
FY ’98 Financial Statements received "Unqualified" opinion, but not issued on a timely basis. |
FY ’99 Financial Statements received "Unqualified" opinion, but not issued on a timely basis. |
FY ’00 Financial Statements receive "Unqualified" opinion and issued by March 1, 2001 due date. |
FY ’00 Financial Statements received "Unqualified" opinion and issued by March 1, 2001 due date. |
|
Status of Accountability Report (ref: GMRA) |
FY ’98 Accountability Report completed 9/99, signed 10/99, and distributed thereafter. |
FY ’99 Accountability Report signed and submitted July 2000. |
FY ’00 Accountability Report signed and submitted March 2001 including Performance Plan data. |
FY ’00 Accountability Report signed and submitted March 2001 including Performance Plan data. |
|
Debt collections, quantity |
1,976 debts |
3,837 debts |
4,212 debts |
10,600 debts |
|
|
$2,373,595 |
$123,442,775 |
$47,097,498 |
$679,921,924 |
|
Credit card purchases overseas (quantity) |
5,874 transactions |
22,000 transactions |
30,000 transactions |
38,298 transactions |
|
Performance Indicator |
FY ’99 Baseline |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Credit card purchases overseas:
|
$4,794,125 |
$12,095,000 |
$16,600,000 |
$16,858,610 |
|
Credit card purchases in U.S.: (quantity) |
33,466 transactions |
38,200 transactions |
38,500 transactions |
47,032 transactions |
|
Credit card purchases in U.S.: $ total |
$20,600,000 |
$23,200,000 |
$23,400,000 |
$29,868,398.68 |
|
Collections by credit card: $ total |
$3,749,912 |
$5,625,000 |
$8,450,000 |
$18,031,974 |
|
Security orientation and training |
|
|
|
|
|
Status of usage of data collected and transferred to support budget and financial functions |
Global database includes post-by-post data. |
Software is developed that captures and transfers data on a regional basis. |
Management uses regional data as a resource for making decisions. |
This goal was achieved. |
|
Percentage of grant payments provided electronically |
|
Not all grant payments are made electronically. |
90% of grant payments are made electronically. |
91% of grant payments are made electronically. |
|
|
Source: Independent Auditor’s Reports; Departmental Accountability Reports; Project Plans; FFMIA Reports; Manual Tracking Systems; Credit Card Billings; Department Records; Department Reports; Treasury Reports; OIG and GAO Audit and Inspection Reports; Global Database; ISC Data Base; Central Financial Management System (CFMS); HHS Grants Payments System; Project Plans; FMFIA Reports
Validation: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Management; Managing Director, Financial Policy, Reporting and Analysis; Director of ICASS; Managing Director Budget and Planning; Executive Director |
|
National Interest |
Diplomatic Readiness - Infrastructure and Operations (Administrative Programs) |
Performance Goal # |
IO-04 |
|
Strategic Goal |
|
Establish and maintain infrastructure and operating capacities that enable employees to pursue policy objectives and respond to crises. |
|
Outcome Desired |
|
Enhanced organizational effectiveness to meet mission requirements both domestically and abroad. |
|
Performance Goal |
|
Domestic and overseas Department of State employees, other U.S. Government employees, and public customers receive goods and services when needed. |
|
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01
The Bureau of Administration in its many capacities, met or exceeded many of its FY ’01 targets to sustain and improve performance in meeting legal requirements, Congressionally funded projects, and other initiatives supporting the worldwide administrative network of the Department of State. In some instances, targets for FY ’01 were not fully met due to circumstances described below, or targets were adjusted during the course of the year as strategies for long-term success were adjusted. Beginning in the fourth quarter, the Bureau of Administration established a new Center for Administrative Innovation with the purpose of identifying the best ideas, particularly from posts abroad, for improving the way we do business.
FY ’01 Highlights:
- The Department of State exceeded the 5% statutory goal for small and disadvantaged business utilization. In the first year of measuring procurement dollars to service-disabled veterans, we fell somewhat short of the 3% mandatory percentage goal. Nonetheless, the estimated 2.3% total for FY ‘01 provides a firm foundation for success in the coming year. The figures are very preliminary for the other special category goals, but the Bureau of Administration will focus particular effort on meeting the HubZone and Women-Owned Businesses goals for FY ’02.
· The Department has been diligent in efforts to meet alternative-fuel vehicle acquisition requirements. Replacements of gasoline and/or diesel-run vehicles have been made via the regular replacement cycle through GSA, for all applicable sedans and shuttle busses of the domestic motor vehicle fleet.
· The Department made funding available in FY ’01 toward the goal of eliminating the FOIA backlog over a 2-year period, in FY ’02 and FY ’03. This effort is now under way, with the hiring of additional information analysts.
· The Integrated Logistics Management System (ILMS) is on track for implementation in FY ‘04, and the Department’s Statebuy Interactive Platform (e-commerce) is enjoying wide and growing use.
Performance Measures:
The performance goal was partially achieved, because there are numerous objectives that ranged from full success to partial success.
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is still awaiting final statistics for FY ’01; however, it appears based on preliminary information, that we did not achieve some of the new mandatory goals recently established government-wide (see above).
The strategies and performance targets for administrative programs will be under review during the FY ’04 performance planning cycle. |
|
FY ’01 RESULTS AS OF 9/30/01 (cont’d)
Verification and Validation:
The data used to determine progress and success is very reliable but in some cases, is not available until later in the subsequent fiscal year for purposes of accurate reporting (e.g., FPDS).
The measures included in the Administrative Programs goal are suitable in that they measure progress in areas where: 1) there are statutory requirements to meet standardized goal; or 2) they provide reports of progress on programs that enjoy either congressional and/or Departmental funding and managerial support. |
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Records and Publishing Services
Reduce information access statutory backlog – FOIA |
0% |
0% |
0%
Targeted achievement begins in FY ‘02. |
|
Verification |
Source: FREEDOMS (system); PA Biennial Report; reports to Archivist of U.S. |
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Logistics Management
Outcomes
Customer satisfaction increase of 10% annually
Reduced cycle time.
Outputs
ILMS operational plan
Initial ILMS implementation |
70% satisfaction rate.
Implementation plan developed. |
80% satisfaction rate.
10% reduction.
Implementation plan published
COTS selections. |
Indicator changed
Indicator changed
Plan published 12/00.
COTS selected in FY ’00; conference room pilots completed; design 50% complete. |
|
|
Source: Department of State Information Technology Tactical Plan, maintained by Bureau of Information Resources Management |
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Procurement Executive
Statebuy Interactive Platform (E-commerce):
Number of offices and posts online |
39 |
50 |
49 |
|
Verification |
Source: A/OPE: Statebuy Interactive Platform; A/OPE records; S/FPDS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
Small/Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Meeting or exceeding all SBA goals
Small, women-owned business prime and subcontract goal (EO 13157 of May 2000) – 5% annual goal
Percentage of domestic procurement dollars to service disabled Veterans (statutorily mandated) - 1.5% in FY ’01; 2% in FY ’02
Percentage of domestic procurement dollars to firms located in Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) zones (statutorily mandated) - 2% FY ’01; 3% FY ’02 |
Meet/exceed all
|
Meet/exceed all
"
" |
SDB goal exceeded – 14% to non-8a SDBs and 7.1% to 8a firms. This equates to 21% of Department of State total acquisitions in SDBs.
Small women-owned: TBD
Disabled Veterans: 2.3%
HUB zones: 0%
Note: Figures are incomplete pending final reports made public in March 2002. |
|
Verification |
Source: General Services Administration’s FDPS; Department of State acquisition offices’ procurement data |
Performance Indicator |
FY ’00 Actual |
FY ’01 Target |
FY ’01 Actual |
|
General Services Management:
|
40 AFVs; additional 21 vehicles and 2 natural gas shuttle buses to be acquired. |
Acquisition of at minimum, additional 25 AFVs and 2 additional natural gas shuttle buses. |
Total of 37 AFVs acquired, including one (1) additional natural gas shuttle bus and seven (7) natural gas vans. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Verification |
Source: A Bureau records; government-wide database
Assistant Secretary for Administration |
Countries |
Worldwide |
|
Complementary U.S. Government Activities
(non-Department of State) |
|
|
Lead Agency |
Department of State: Bureau of Administration |
|
Partners |
Various U.S. Government agencies – see “Complementary U.S. Government Activities” section above. |
|
