Detailed Information on the
Depot Maintenance - Naval Aviation Assessment

Work to develop indicators that measure adherence to the maintenance schedule and quality control.

More closely align funding decisions to the improved metrics

Provide schedule adherence metrics to OMB in time for the FY 2009 budget review.

2007. Work to improve engine metrics for spares requirements tying them directly to FRP surge requirements.

Measure: Airframes - Estimated Inductions. This measures the number of airframes that the Navy plans on sending to air depots for maintenance.

Explanation:

Measure: Engines - Estimated Inductions. This measures the number of aircraft engines that the Navy plans on sending to air depots for maintenances.

Explanation:

Measure: Airframes - Deployed Squadrons Meeting Goal of 100% Primary Authorized Aircraft (PAA)

Explanation:

Measure: Airframes - Non-Deployed Squadrons Meeting Goal of 90% PAA

Explanation:

Measure: Engines - Type Model Series Meeting Zero Bare Firewall

Explanation:

Measure: Engines - Type Model Series Meeting Ready for Issue Spares Goal of 90%

Explanation:

Measure: Aircraft Mission Capable Rate. This measures the percent of Naval aircraft that are capable of performing their designed missions. There will always be a percentage of aircraft not mission capable due to scheduled maintenance.

Explanation:

Measure: Percent of Navy Aircraft Fully Mission Capable

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Aircraft Depot Maintenance program provides for airframe, engine, and component rework to meet established Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) readiness goals.

Evidence: The Department of Defense is required by 10 U.S.C. Sec. 2464 to perform organic maintenance on its materiel. DoD Directive 4151.18 states that "Maintenance programs are structured for meeting readiness and sustainability objectives (including mobilization and surge capabilities) of national defense strategic and contingency requirements."

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

Explanation: National defense is an inherently governmental function, of which naval air power is a component. Periodic maintenance is required on all U.S. naval aircraft to keep them mission-ready and safe for continuous operations in support of national defense policy.

Evidence: The need for naval aviation is outlined in documents such as Naval Aviation Vision 2003 and Sea Power 21. Naval aviation is forward operating, allowing the U.S. to project offensive power from the sea and to extend defensive assurance throughout the world. DoD Directive 4151.18 outlines the need for maintenance to ensure that DoD materiel is kept in working order.

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

Explanation: No other government agencies outside the Department of Defense provide for the maintenance of the Navy's airframes, engines, and components.

Evidence: The Navy has Title 10 responsibility for the maintenance of its materiel assets. While there is some similarity with Air Force depot activities, collaboration through the Joint Depot Maintenance Activity Group ensures that the program is not unnecessarily redundant or duplicative of other Federal programs.

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

Explanation: The Navy continuously reviews its maintenance procedures and models to increase their efficiency. Such processes determine workload requirements, costing of workload, and performance measurement. The Naval Air Depot Maintenance program allows naval aircraft to operate in a high degree of readiness and has contributed to the Navy's ability to project American naval power around the world.

Evidence: A February 2004 Verification, Validation & Accreditation found no major flaws in the Air Depot Maintenance Model requirement projection process. Moreover, the air depot maintenance program consistently meets the Navy's requirements.

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

Explanation: The program is well-designed. Air depot maintenance is a high priority within the Navy and funds are specifically targeted for it using the naval aviation Maintenance and Material Management System. The Office of the Secretary of Defense conducts a "mid-year" review to ensure that funds are being properly executed within the program.

Evidence: All funds in this program are contained within sub-activity group 1A5A (Congressional Special Interest) which is directly managed by the Commander for Industrial Operations (NAVAIR 6.0). Congressional approval is required prior to moving more than $15M from this program funding line.

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: Each aircraft type has a tailored maintenance program designed to keep it in a high state of material readiness. The Navy uses a Reliability Centered Maintenance method to identify maintenance required to maintain aircraft at a minimal cost. The metrics are the output of airframes and engines necessary to meet squadrons' readiness requirements. The Navy's goal is to have 73% of its aircraft mission capable.

Evidence: Policy for aircraft maintenance is set out in the Chief Naval Officer's policy guidance, Aviation Maintenance OPNAV Instruction 4790.2H. Performance metrics are reported in the Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2005 Budget book. Long-term estimates of maintenance requirements are listed out to 2014 in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM).

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

Explanation: Maintenance actions are scheduled out until 2014. The Navy program strives to meet 100% of the maintenance requirements for deployed squadrons and fill ready for issue spare parts pools to 90%.

Evidence: Naval budget exhibits such as the OP-30 contain estimated airframe and engine induction requirements for future years.

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: Each aircraft type has a tailored maintenance program designed to keep it in a high state of material readiness. The Navy uses a Reliability Centered Maintenance method to identify maintenance required to maintain aircraft at a minimal cost. Annual measures reflect the percentage of the number of repairs required to achieve the Navy's mission capable goals that the program expects to fund.

Evidence: Policy for aircraft maintenance is set out in the Chief Naval Officer's policy guidance, Aviation Maintenance OPNAV Instruction 4790.2H. Performance metrics are reported in the Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2005 Budget book. Long-term estimates of maintenance requirements are listed out to 2014 in the POM. These measures are also listed in the Navy's Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2005 Budget book.

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

Explanation: The Navy's goals are to meet all of the maintenance requirements of the warfighter.

Evidence: The Navy's goals for airframes are: 100% of primary authorized aircrafts (PAA) for deployed squadrons and 90% PAA for non-deployed Squadrons. The goals for engines are zero-bare firewalls and filling 90% of ready for issue spares pools.

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: The Navy, as an active member of the Joint Depot Maintenance Activity Group, participates regularly in conferences and discussions with partners to develop joint performance metrics and to establish and adopt best practices. Program partners are integrated in the AIRSpeed process that allows them to share best practices with public maintenance facilities and share knowledge that leads to efficiency gains.

Evidence: Depot Maintenance Interservice Support Agreements govern activities where the Navy uses other services' depots. The AIRSpeed Office acts as an operational enabler to link contractors and organic depots that interact with the Naval Aviation Readiness Integrated Improvement Program, which coordinates all Navy's aviation programs.

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 Naval Audit Service and Department of Defense Inspector General conduct periodic audits of the Navy's maintenance activities. In addition, Naval air depots are ISO 9001:2000 registered, which requires independent audits to verify that they are employing best management practices.

Evidence: Examples of recent audits include: Reporting of Depot Maintenance Workload Allocation between Public and Private Sectors; Industrial Planning Function at Naval Aviation Depot; Accountability and Control of Materiel at the Naval Air Depot; Accountability and Control of Materiel at the Naval Air Depot, North Island.

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: Budget requests reflect the units required for induction to support the CNO readiness goals and can be tracked to specific maintenance actions. The Navy measures performance in terms of the percent of identified maintenance needs that are fulfilled.

Evidence: In the OP-5 and OP-30 exhibits of the Department's Congressional Budget Justification Materials supporting the President's Budget Request. Funding actions can be tracked to specific maintenance actions.

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

Explanation: The Navy is applying Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma concepts to increase the efficiency of its depot maintenance programs.

Evidence: These concepts have been endorsed by the International Organization for Standards (ISO) ; and one depot has received an award for successful implementation.

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: CNO receives monthly readiness reports. Department of the Navy Comptroller reviews performance information during the Navy midyear review, budget/requirement review and during the President's Budget review.

Evidence: The Navy has an Aviation Engine Management System output that is updated twice a month and contains information relating to all maintenance actions. This report is sent to the Chief of Naval Operations.

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: The maintenance of U.S. military materiel is an inherently governmental function. Naval Air Systems Command, which manages this program, is held accountable via monthly readiness reports that are sent to the CNO. The Navy HQ also reviews performance information during the Navy midyear review.

Evidence: The Aviation Engine Management System allows logistics managers to review individual maintenance actions and hold managers responsible for them accountable for cost overruns or delays.

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

Explanation: Funds are obligated in a timely manner. While some carryover of maintenance funds is inevitable, the Navy maintains this amount within Defense Department guidelines. The Office of the Secretary of Defense conducts a "mid-year" review to determine whether funds are being executed according to requirements.

Evidence: The Navy Comptroller receives monthly reports (DD1002) from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service on current year obligations. Obligation data are also presented in the Navy's budget justification materials.

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 Naval Air Systems Command and the Commander, Naval Air Forces manage process efficiencies for the aircraft depots through the Naval Aviation Readiness Integrated Improvement Program. The Navy is implementing an AIRSpeed process which examines a wide variety of performance metrics to identify interdependencies and processes that will improve maintenance efficiencies,

Evidence: The AIRSpeed Office has outlined its processes in a briefing outlining the AIRSpeed Enterprise architecture, which seeks to coordinate organic and contractor maintenance facilities to standardize practices that have resulted in increaed efficiencies.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Naval Aviation Readiness Integrated Improvement Program coordinates all aviation programs (e.g. Air Systems Support programs) within the Navy. The Navy collaborates with the maintenance programs of the other services through the Joint Depot Maintenance Activity Group.

Evidence: The Navy, as an active member of the Joint Depot Maintenance Activity Group, participates regularly in conferences and discussions with partners to develop joint performance metrics and to establish and adopt best practices.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Defense Department's financial management weaknesses are well-documented. While DoD continues to make efforts to improve it, the Department has yet to obtain an unqualified audit opinion. The Navy does not have audit reports demonstrating that its air depot maintenance program is free from internal weaknesses.

Evidence: Numerous audits document the Department's financial management weaknesses. Because of the magnitude of its problems, DoD is unlikely to obtain an unqualified audit for some time. GAO has specifically identified logistics and inventory control as one of the Department's weaknesses.

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

Explanation: The Naval Air Systems Command and the Commander, Naval Air Forces manage process efficiencies for the aircraft depots through the Naval Aviation Readiness Integrated Improvement Program. The Navy is applying Theory of Constraints, Lean, and Six Sigma concepts to increase the efficiency of its depot maintenance programs.

Evidence: The AIRSpeed Office has directed programs to adopt best practices from industry to reduce bottlenecks, decrease waste and better manage inventory. These practices have helped the Navy reduce cycle times and improved the quality of much of its depot-level maintenance work.

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

Explanation: The program historically achieves CNO readiness goals. Naval assets continue to operate around the world at a high state of readiness due to previous and current maintenance methodology and practices.

Evidence: The Performance Criteria section in the Navy's Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2005 Budget book shows that the Navy is meeting its long-term goal of repairing 100% of Primary Authorized Aircraft for deploying squadrons.

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

Explanation: The program historically reaches CNO readiness goals. The Navy is meeting its readiness goal of inducting 100% of primary authorized aircraft for deploying squadrons and exceeding its goals for Ready-For-Issue Engine spares.

Evidence: The Highlights of the Department of the Navy FY 2005 Budget book lists the Navy's key performance metrics and shows that it is meeting them.

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

Explanation: LEAN initiatives are ongoing. In depots where LEAN is applied, it has reduced the direct labor hours per repair, which will reduce cost.

Evidence: The AIRSPeed Office has metrics showing improvements in quality of work and cycle times at various depots. But there are not meaningful aggregated metrics that would show increased efficiencies for the program as a whole.

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

Explanation: Annual performance is similar to that achieved by the Air Force. There are no other federal programs that have similar purpose and goals.

Evidence: The Navy is consistently meeting its maintenance requirements. Its assets have achieved a high mission capable rate that compares favorably with assets of other services, such as the Air Force. Maintenance indicators and processes are shared with similar programs to achieve similar results with lower increases for inflation than programs that are similar to it.

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

Explanation: There are no systematic evaluations by organizations independent from DOD. However, DOD routinely certifies Navy assessments of how well their training, equipment, and personnel can meet the requirements of real-world military missions. This assessment of Navy readiness is reported to Congress in classified form on a quarterly basis. Ongoing combat operations and these reports show that Naval units are ready to meet their real-world combat missions.

Evidence: The most recent quarterly readiness report to Congress and ongoing combat operations show that Naval forces are ready to meet their real-world military missions.