Detailed Information on the
Navy Ship Readiness Assessment

Continue to evaluate the implementation of the FRP to ensure proper readiness levels are maintained and that global presence requirements are being met for the war-fighting commanders.

Continue to provide adequate funding to support the FRP goals so that the Nation has the capability to surge six carrier strike groups in 30 days, and one additional carrier within 90 days.

Continue to evaluate base operations as an individual program in the future. It was included in this PART due to its role in enabling operations.

Measure: Ship Years Supported

Explanation:

Measure: Days Underway Per Quarter (Deployed/Non-Deployed)

Explanation:

Measure: Ship Operating Months (Deployed/Non-Deployed)

Explanation:

Measure: Ship Steaming Days Per Quarter (Deployed/Non-Deployed)

Explanation:

Measure: Barrels of Fossil Fuel Required (000s)

Explanation:

Measure: Nuclear Material Consumption ($000)

Explanation:

Measure: MSC Charter Inventory

Explanation:

Measure: MSC Per Diem Days Chartered (FOS/ROS)

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: This program provides for all aspects of ship operations required to continuously deploy combat ready warships and supporting forces in support of national security objectives: to deter potential adversaries, support allies, defend freedom of navigation, and to strike and defeat adversaries without the need to rely on foreign bases.

Evidence: The missions of the ship operations program are consistent with the statutory charges to the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Navy to deploy combat ready forces in support of U.S. national security objectives. The Navy Posture Statement describes in detail the purposes of the ship operations program and the Congressional Budget Justification Books (CBJB), section 1B1B Op-5, provides a definition of operations financed. Title 10, USC, Subtitle C, sections 5013, 5032, 5062 provide the statutory basis for the program.

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

Explanation: Programs supported include operating tempo, fleet and unit training, operational support such as command and control, pier side support and port services, organizational maintenance, and associated administrative and other support needed to deploy combat ready ships.

Evidence: CBJB, section 1B1B Op-5 - provides a definition of operations financed. Title 10, USC, Subtitle C, sections 5013, 5032, 5062. Also, the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) instructs the purposes to which the program is targeted.

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

Explanation: The Navy ship operations program funds a deployable battle force of 290 ships in FY 2005. The Naval combat mission is not duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort.

Evidence: The establishment of the Navy (deploying combat ready ships being its main mission) dates in statute to 1775, and is today codified in Title 10, USC. The roles and missions of the Navy are further clarified in DOD Directive 5100.1, section 6.6.2.

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

Explanation: At the levels of both the Fleets and the Department of Navy, verification, validation and accreditation of the ship operations model is an ongoing process to identify the resources required, and the outputs needed to produce desired outcomes. The ability to effectively re-orient funding enables the Navy to address any change of circumstances during the year of execution from those used when the ship operations model generated requirements for the budget year.

Evidence: The Ship Operations Model provides the basis for estimating the inputs required to generate the outputs (i.e. combat ready, deployable ships) which produce the desired outcomes (e.g. a maritime environment in which U.S. interests are secure). The Navy's directorate for Resources, Requirements and Assessments (N81) is responsible for accreditation reports to provide objective reviews of the program and its effectiveness. Quarterly and monthly readiness reports to Congress indicate that the ship operations program is effectively producing combat ready deployable ships.

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 operations funds are fenced within the Operation and Maintenance, Navy (O&M) appropriation to the element and special interest code levels within the budget activity group. This ensures that appropriated funds must be spent in support of the program. This program is one of the Navy's top priorities and ensuring that it is properly resourced is of paramount importance. DOD and the Navy also perform a mid-year reveiw to evaluate the execution of the program against the planned performance and to ensure that it remains properly resourced.

Evidence: In formulating the budget, the Ship Operations Model, which targets resources to the program, is critical. The Program Budget Information System/Navy Budget Tracking System, 1B1B Performance Criteria in the OP-5 budget exhibit demonstrate what the program plans to spend to accomplish its mission objectives each year. Reports of certified obligations are provided monthly from each Fleet (Atlantic & Pacific) via the Defense Finance and Accounting System (DFAS) to track budget execution during the year.

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: Program performance goals include the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) established the goal of being able to employ the fleet in a "6+2" paradigm. That is the Navy must be able to deploy 6 carrier strike groups (CSGs) within 30 days of an order, and be able to follow on with 2 more CSGs by 90 days from the initial order. This new training and deployment concept is known as the Fleet Response Plan (FRP). Ultimately, deterring or prevailing in conflicts is the desired outcome.

Evidence: The FRP brief to Congress and OMB and the National Military Strategy support this conclusion.

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

Explanation: The program supports key elements of the Navy's vision statement for the 21st Century - Sea Power 21, which challenges the Navy to assure access for Joint Forces to coastal areas, protect freedom of navigation, fight and win conflicts, and continue to transform the operational concepts and business practices of the Navy. The FRP embodies ambitious goals since the previous operational concept called upon the Navy to have 3 CSGs deployed at any given time, with the ability to surge 1 or 2 more. The "6+2" goal of the FRP is much more ambitious than the previous operational concept.

Evidence: Worldwide military exercises called Sea Pulse during FY 2004 will put the performance of the ship operations program and the FRP concept to the test when 7 CSGs are deployed simultaneously in several locations. Program targets for the next 5 years are identified in the Program Objective Memorandum (POM) and are adjusted every 2 years as part of DOD's Planning, Programming, Budgeting and Execution System (PPBE).

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: Annual program performance goals include maintaining the ability to meet the CNO's FRP goal of being able to employ the fleet in a "6+2" paradigm. Achieving the desired readiness levels in ships (both in deployed and non-deployed phases of their training and maintenance cycles) to enable the fleets to stay in a "6+2" posture is funded in the program's budget.

Evidence: Performance criteria of CBJB section 1B1B Op-5 exhibit (deployed/non-deployed steaming data), and the Department of the Navy FY05 Budget Highlights Book support this conclusion.

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

Explanation: FRP readiness targets are very ambitious when compared against the baseline of the old Cold War legacy rotational deployment operational concept that it replaced in FYs 2003-2004. The targets have been developed in light of known missions, historical data and force structure requirements.

Evidence: Performance criteria of 1B1B Op-5 (deployed/non-deployed steaming data) and actual deployments of the fleet which demonstrate the sustainability of the FRP concept (e.g. 6 or more CSGs underway simultaneously).

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: Ship Operations Capability plan is based on input from the Fleet commanders, and is not exclusively a top-down plan and so it has buy-in from the major partners.

Evidence: The Ship Operations Capability Plan and other POM related processes incorporate lessons learned from program partners and identify any changes to requirements needed to meet current program goals.

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: An Annual Ship Operations conference is held to review and validate programmatic requirements for the ship operations program.

Evidence: Ship Operations Capability Plan (January 2004). Draft GAO audit of FRP (Spring 2004), and N4 Sponsor Program Proposal (SPP), which is a document that outlines the prioritized requirements of the ship operations program; both those requirements that are funded and request which are unfunded within the existing and planned budgetary resources.

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: Program operations of 12 CSGs and 12 expeditionary strike groups (ESGs), composed of large-deck amphibious assult ships, other combat and support ships. The DOD PPBE requires the Department to budget based upon a determination of the resources needed to achieve the required operating tempo (e.g. steaming days) based upon the approved mission requirements.

Evidence: Performance criteria of 1B1B OP-5 (deployed and non-deployed steaming data) demonstrate the funded level of activity for both ships which are in training and those actually deployed. OP-41 also displays ship type, hours of operation funded and cost estimate for each fiscal year. The data on previous year resource execution in the CBJB is verified by the Defense Finance and Accounting Report 1002s.

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

Explanation: The Navy reviews on a continuous basis its past and current operations and future requirements for the ship operations program, and annually engages in a comprehensive validation of requirements to balance operational risks with program levels.

Evidence: Integrated Readiness Capabilities Assessment (IRCA) is an iterative process designed to incorporate the latest changes in price estimates and operational requirements to the Navy's long-term plans and budget estimates.

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: Certified monthly obligation data provided by Fleets to Navy Headquarters. This information is analyzed and recommendations are made to Navy and DOD senior leadership for execution and programmatic decisions.

Evidence: Execution and readiness reports are sent to senior Navy leaders. Specifics may be classified, but e.g. reduced readiness in a certain area may indicate that funds should be realigned to address a shortcomming. Also data is systematically collected and reported in the Standard Accounting and Reporting System - Fleet Level (STARS-FL).

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: Quarterly allocations from OSD based upon current year execution data. Senior program managers (Type Commanders, Fleet Commanders, CNO, SecNav etc') are also required to testify before Congress regarding the readiness of the Navy. Additionally, OSD and OMB hold mid-year execution reviews to analyse the obligation rates and make necessary adjustments.

Evidence: Title 10, USC, section 5025. Annual execution phasing plans provided by Budget Submitting Offices, and certified obligations are reported monthly. Also, DoD Directive 7045.14.

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

Explanation: Since O&M is 1-year money, the program must obligate it in a timely manner. Restrictions on below-threshold-reprogrammings (no more than $15 M in a SAG) prevent funds from being used for purposes other than for which they have been appropriated. In addition to routine monthly reviews of execution by financial personnel at the unit, command, Fleet and Navy Comptroller levels, a comprehensive mid-year execution review is undertaken. Navy, DoD and OMB participate in the review which monitors the major programs' obligation rates and determines what corrective actions are required to properly align remaining resources with projected needs for the balance of the year.

Evidence: Title 10, USC, section 5025. Annual execution phasing plans provided by Budget Submitting Offices, and certified obligations are reported monthly. DFAS 1002 reports.

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: Budget execution data are compared to readiness output and deficiencies are brought to the attention of Navy leadership and DOD.

Evidence: Performance criteria of 1B1B Op-5 are measures.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Navy's core mission fullfiled by the ship operations program is unique (i.e. providing combat ready ships available for worldwide deployment). While there are related programs which support the combat effectiveness of the fleet, such as the depot maintenance program, and although the U.S. Coast Guard deploys vessels in homeland security/law enforcement/search and rescue missions, there are no other programs providing a full spectrum of expeditionary naval combat power to collaborate with the Navy.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The DoD, while making strides to improve its financial management systems, can not yet produce an unqualified audit opinion.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: The Navy convenes an Annual Ship Operations conference to review and validate programmatic requirements. Operationally, the FRP represents a major effort by the Navy to more effectively manage its fleets of aircraft and ships to place more combat capabilities at the Nation's disposal on short notice, which is a major departure from the management of the program when it was oriented along Cold War lines.

Evidence: The Ship Operations Capability Plan takes stock of available data and program managers and stake holders determine what changes are required in the ship operations model. Improvements to the model increase its accuracy to factor in new pricing data, policy decisions and management improvements related to the program.

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

Explanation: This sub-activity group provides for all aspects of ship operations required to continuously deploy combat ready warships and supporting forces in support of national objectives and the Naval related aspects of the National Military Strategy.

Evidence: Section 1B1B Op-5, of the CBJB provides a definition of the operations financed and carried out by the ship operations program.

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

Explanation: Historical optempo data (e.g. number of days steamed per quarter) demonstrates that the Navy ship operations program is meeting or exceeding its goals.

Evidence: Performance Criteria are reported annually in section 1B1B Op-5, of the CBJBs.

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

Explanation: this is the case to a large extent, due to the annual comprehensive validation of requirements undertaken by the Navy to balance operational risks with program funding levels, and ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of operations.

Evidence: Integrated Readiness Capabilities Assessment supports this conclusion.

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

Explanation: Ship Operations of a battle fleet is a mission or activity unique to the Department of Defense.

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: Program review and assessment is accomplished through the Navy's vigorous accreditation and validation process for program requirements and objectives. The Navy directorate which undertakes these evaluations is independent of the ship operations program managers. Assessments of Naval readiness are also performed by DOD and reported to Congress in classified form on a quarterly basis. Ongoing combat operations related to the Global War on Terror and these readiness reports demonstrate that the Navy's fleet is ready to meet its real-world combat missions.

Evidence: OPNAV N81 Accreditation Report and Quarterly Readiness Reports to Congress