Detailed Information on the
Department of Defense Depot Maintenance: Ship Assessment

Align funding decisions for ship depot maintenance to performance metrics.

Work to estimate future deferred maintenance to properly accurately balance resources and operational risk.

Work in the next year to develop indicators that measure adherence to maintenance schedule; quality control.

Work to improve the program's financial management practices.

Measure: Overhauls

Explanation:

Measure: Selected Restricted Availabilities

Explanation:

Measure: Planned Incremental Availabilities

Explanation:

Measure: Phased Maintenance Availabilities

Explanation:

Measure: Schedule Adherence

Explanation:Percentage of maintenance actions completed on time or early. Data is used to evaluate public shipyard performance as well as inefficient Fleet maintenance execution practices.

Measure: Trouble reports for all 4 public shipyards.

Explanation:A lower number is better

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program has a clear and succinct mission. The purpose of the ship maintenance program is to manage the material condition requirements and configuration of Navy ships.

Evidence: DoD Directive 4151.18 outlines the general purpose of maintenance programs throughout the Department of Defense. The goal of Naval ship maintenance published in OPNAVINST 4700 follows: "The goal of Navy Ship Maintenance is to maintain the appropriate ship material condition and availability for operations (readiness)."

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

Explanation: National defense is an inherently governmental function, of which naval power is a component. Periodic maintenance is required on all U.S. naval warships and service craft in order to keep the vessels 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 federal, state, local or private organization plans, funds and conducts repairs on U.S. naval warships and support craft.

Evidence: While there is some similarity with Coast Guard ship maintenance the Navy has the unique Title 10 function of providing the U.S. government with expeditionary sea power and, therefore, has its own assets that require regular maintenance.

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. The ship maintenance program allows naval vessels to operate in a high degree of readiness and has contributed to the Navy's ability to project American sea power around the world.

Evidence: A February 2004 Verification, Validation & Accreditation found no major flaws in the Ship Maintenance Model requirement projection process. Moreover, the ship 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. Ship maintenance is a high priority within the Navy and funds are specifically targeted for it. The Office of the Secretary of Defense conducts a "mid-year" review to ensure that funds are being properly executed within the program.

Evidence: The ship repair financial resources are in a specific AGSAG (1B4B) and Congressional approval is required prior to moving more than $15M from this program funding line. Within the AGSAG, resources are further allocated to each ship platform type by a unique program element.

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 ship class 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 ships at a minimal cost.

Evidence: Scheduled maintenance is identified in the Class Maintenance Plan (CMP) and Integrated Class Maintenance Plan (ICMP). Requirements are scheduled out to 2014 using the Fleet Modernization Program Managment Information System.

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

Explanation: Maintenance actions are scheduled out to 2014.

Evidence: The Fleet Modernization Program Management Information System is a forward looking tool using inputs from known averages within the Navy Maintenance Requirement System in conjunction with OMB inflation projections to determine future requirements and and funding needs and goals for both.

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 program maintains numerous performance metrics. The Navy collects data on schedule performance and trouble reports that indicate whether ships are being repaired in a timely manner and whether those repairs are meeting the Navy's quality requirements.

Evidence: The establishment of limited annual performance measures is difficult because the ship maintenance program is tailored to many different ship classes. Nonetheless, the Navy maintains extensive measures of program performance.

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

Explanation: Baseline requirements are determined by ships' maintenance-cycles, which are developed according the the technical specifications for each ship-class. They are adjusted annually based on prior execution and adjustments to their operational schedule.

Evidence: Naval Sea Systems Command and echelon II commanders supply annual updates to baseline data through the Maintenance Requirement System (MRS). Data is used to update the Chief of Naval Operations instrcutions in OPNAVNOTE 4700, which delineates intervals, durations, maintenance cycles and repair mandays for availabilities of U.S. naval vessels.

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.

Evidence: At its annual fleet maintenance conference, the Navy sets out its ship maintenance requirements for its partners. It works together with contractors and interdepartmental partners to determine private sector availabilities and to standardize methodologies.

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: Program reviews are conducted at least semi annually by type commanders and Fleets down to the individual asset. The Navy Budget Office coducts annual reviews and issues reviews as they arise. And the Naval Audit Service conducts annual reviews.

Evidence: Program reviews are conducted at least semi annually by type commanders and Fleets down to the individual asset. The Navy Budget Office coducts annual reviews and issues reviews as they arise. General Accounting Office conducted reviews in 2003, 2004, and Naval Audit Service conducts annual reviews.

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 can be tracked to a specific maintenance action or performing activity.

Evidence: Budget requests are made citing specific ship and hull number, maintenance location, maintenance type, start date, end date, estimated mandays, equipment alterations and material required to complete the requested action in the OP-30 exhibit.

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

Explanation: Although the ship maintenance program is very effective, the Navy recognizes that it can become more efficient. The Navy is taking steps to increase communication between maintenance centers and to develop standard processes to reduce maintenance costs.

Evidence: The Navy conducts continuous reviews of its ship maintenance program to increase its efficiency and effectiveness. It has adopted a "One Shipyard" concept that promotes communication between ship maintenance organizations. The Navy is also implementing metrics-driven processes, so can become aware of its status and progress at any given point.

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: Data including work accomplished, work deferred and work planned are regularly received from individual ships and afloat units in addition to regional and depot level maintenance facilities.

Evidence: Data collected from individual points are summarized within the MRS and reviewed at the Program Manager level.

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: All late work completions, mandays overages and cost overruns are reported and tracked on an individual action item that can be tracked to the specific ship in question.

Evidence: During each maintenance period the unit commanding officer is required to submit periodic overhaul progress updates that specifically identify any difficulties or actions that will cause delay or cost overruns. In addition shipyards or the Supervisor of Ship Repair submit midterm and completion reports that identify funds planned, funds exceeded (if any), lessons learned, and specific reasons for overages in any category.

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 DD1002 reports on current year obligations from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). 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 Navy continuously reviews its ship maintenance procedures and models to increase their efficiency. It consistently refines its models to reduce premiums, reduce process cycle time, and improve personnel productivity.

Evidence: The Navy's main ship maintenance policy document OPNAVINST 4700.7K, states that Fleet Commanders are to provide resource expenditure feedback to the Maintenance and Material Management System "in detail sufficient to support refinement and validation of technical requirements, to perform engineering analysis, and to schedule subsequent maintenance actions."

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Within the Department of Defense ship maintenance is unique to the Navy. Nonetheless, the Navy collaborates with the maintenance programs of the other services through the Joint Depot Maintenance Activity Group.

Evidence: Ship Operations 1B1B program and Ship Maintenance use common data to determine operating months, a key component in prediction calculations. The Planned maintenance schedule in 1B4B is used to determine requirement levels of support in the 1B5B Ship Support program.

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 ship 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: Several shipyard efficiency programs are currently running in order to reduce overhead, reduce repair mandays required, and change repair procedures to reduce required materials needed.

Evidence: In FY04 several Intermediate Maintenance Activities (IMA's) are being combined under Regional Maintenance Activities' umbrella which is expected to reduce indirect labor overhead, and result in a more efficient use of available manning.

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

Explanation: Naval assets continue to operate around the world at a high state of readiness due to previous and current maintenance methodology and practices. The Navy is maintaining the number of ships it budgets for.

Evidence: Based on historical averages and current inputs into the MRS future maintenance requirements will be projected and planned for adequately.

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

Explanation: Readiness goals are being achieved.

Evidence: In the past year, the Navy was able to support the efforts of the joint force commander in a rapid and effective manner. Ship Maintenance goals of inducting 97 maintenance availabilities in FY 2003 was met.

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

Explanation: The program has shown a general trend toward improved schedule performance and decreased trouble reports. But schedule performance declined from 2003 to 2004. This was because maintenance actions were rescheduled to meet emergent wartime requirements, which caused an abnormal number of delays.

Evidence: Because the program must be responsive to the warfighter's needs, scheduling inefficiencies may arise as repair actions are adjusted because of changing national security needs. This happened in 2004 as the acceleration of ship maintenance on an aircraft carrier caused delays in other planned actions. The general trend since 2000, however, has been toward improved schedule adherence. Similarly, trouble reports have been decreasing over time.

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

Explanation: The highly technical Naval ship maintenance program is a relatively unique within the public and private sectors.

Evidence: Technical and mechanical maintenance requirements for naval warships and other afloat assets in excess of standard civilian maintenance practices are defined in the Naval Sea Systems Class Maintenance Plan (CMP), OPNAVINST 4700K - Maintenance Policy for U.S. Navy Ships and OPNAVNOTE 4700 - Representative Intervals, Durations, Maintenance Cycles, and Repair Mandays for Depot Level Maintenance Availabilities of U.S. Navy Ships.

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.