Detailed Information on the
Department of Defense Facilities Sustainment, Restoration, Modernization, and Demolition Assessment

Continue the work of identifying and eliminating excess facilities.

Improve program management. Performance should improve once managers begin managing more strictly to the new performance management tools. Accountability systems have been put in place to help.

Facility condition reporting system has been put in place and the results are being analyzed. The condition reporting system will eventually yield more objective and consistent results.

DoD will update its Real Property Asset Management Plan.

Measure: Percentage of existing facilities rated C-2 or better These facilities have no significant or major deficiencies that affect DoD's ability to perform its missions.

Explanation:

Measure: Rate, expressed in years, in which planned facilities are restored, modernized, or replaced, given planned investment spending (lower, but not below target, is better) (New measure)

Explanation:The goal is achieved if the average rate of the planned DoD facilities upgrades or replacement for that year is 67 years. An indication of the level of performance is based on how close the rate is to the target rate - either slightly higher or lower than the target. This performance measure directly contributes to the program's mission to "provide, operate, and sustain, in a cost-effective manner, the facilities necessary to support military forces in both peace and war." The facility recapitalization metric has steadily improved since DoD began tracking this metric; it has improved from a high in the 190's in early 2000 to 84 in 2006.

Measure: Percentage of day-to-day maintenance funded (target level keeps facilities in good working order) (New measure)

Explanation:This performance measure directly contributes to the program's mission to "provide, operate, and sustain, in a cost-effective manner, the facilities necessary to support military forces in both peace and war." While the program's performance is improving, it has not yet achieved its annual goals. The program reached 90 percent for 2006.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program has a clear vision and succinct mission statement. They are published as part of the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan in the Defense Installations Posture Statement for 2001. The Department of Defense (DoD) recently restructured this program to support the strategic plan unveiled in 2001. The Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization (SRM) program (formerly called the Real Property Maintenance program) and Demolition program together now take a longer-term view towards allocating resources for taking care of facilities to help ensure that DoD gets full return on its investment. The restructuring has improved the way DoD identifies funding requirements for routine facilities investments. It also has improved DoD's ability to track resources programmed for the day-to-day maintenance (sustainment) and the recapitalization (restoration or modernization, or substantial upgrade) of facilities.

Evidence: The vision and mission statement as published in the Defense Installations Posture Statement for 2001 follow. Vision: "Installations and facilities are available when and where needed with capabilities necessary to effectively and efficiently support Department of Defense (DoD) missions." Mission statement: "Provide, operate, and sustain, in a cost-effective manner, the facilities necessary to support military forces in both peace and war." (Note: for this assessment, the Sustainment, Restoration and Modernization program and the Demolition program are considered collectively as SRM/D.)

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

Explanation: America's security depends upon defense installations that are available when and where needed, and with the right capabilities to support current and future military requirements. Due to constrained funding over the past 15 or so years, frequent movement of funds out of facilities maintenance programs to pay other bills, as well as excess infrastructure, the Department has under-invested in facilities, leading to significant deterioration. Congress has raised concern over the magnitude of deterioration and the resulting decline in the ability of facilities to support adequately mission requirements. Congress has created reporting requirements to understand better the problem and help resolve it. DoD is dedicating more resources and has obtained Congressional approval for base closings and realignment to reduce excess infrastructure beginning in 2005.

Evidence: The administration and Congress are concerned about the accumulation of inadequate facilities, and in particular, the impact this has on DoD's ability to perform its missions and maintain an acceptable quality of life. DoD must submit an annual report to Congress that describes the condition of its facilities. In 2002, DoD reported that sixty-eight percent of its facilities had significant or major deficiencies that affected the ability to perform missions. DoD recognizes the need to improve the condition of its facilities and has improved planning and made a long-term commitment to prevent such a significant level of deterioration from happening again.

Is the program designed to have a significant impact in addressing the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: The program is designed to address and solve the problem in three distinct steps. Step 1: Sustain facilities to meet standards and halt deterioration. Step 2: Modernize facilities based on expected service lives to halt creeping obsolescence. Step 3: Restore readiness where affordable and necessary with targeted investments. (Based on the expected service life of facilities, the required recapitalization rate in DoD has been estimated to be 67 years, on average, for all of DoD. The 67-year benchmark assumes that all day-to-day maintenance requirements are funded (full sustainment) throughout the life of the building, and was derived using private sector standards. In the absence of full sustainment, the 67-year service life forecast is reduced. The lack of maintenance in the past has already reduced the expected service life for many facilities.)

Evidence: Defense Planning Guidance, in support of the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan, provides resource allocation guidance to support these problem-solving steps. The military services and defense agencies use this guidance as they program and budget resources for facilities. These steps are documented in two recent reports: (1) Report to Congress, Identification of the Requirements to Reduce the Backlog of Maintenance and Repair of Defense Facilities, April 2001; and (2) Facilities Recapitalization Front End Assessment, August 2002.

Is the program designed to make a unique contribution in addressing the interest, problem or need (i.e., not needlessly redundant of any other Federal, state, local or private efforts)?

Explanation: This program uniquely addresses military facilities maintenance and recapitalization needs. While not redundant with other programs, it does count on financial contributions occasionally from other users of these facilities, such as other federal agencies, state agencies and other nations.

Evidence: Outputs from SRM/D models and metrics are adjusted to account for contributions from other federal and state agencies, from non-appropriated funding sources including private donations, and from host nations (such as Japan) and other international sources (such as NATO). One such model that accounts for outside contributions is the Facilities Recapitalization Metric. This metric relates planned investments to expected facility service (or useful) lives and is used as a management tool to program resources and track progress. It takes into account contributions from other countries and thereby reduces the requirement for spending U.S. appropriated funds.

Is the program optimally designed to address the interest, problem or need?

Explanation: Overall, the program is well-designed, but there are elements that are not optimal. The program has a sound strategic plan and uses performance metrics and improved accounting systems. However, funding for the program is executed in a decentralized manner, which can put goal achievement at risk. Even after budgets have been set, the funding for this program can be moved around easily because funds are obligated in a decentralized manner. Managers from top to bottom can move funding out of, among and within the program without much oversight. This is a problem because if significant funds are moved out of the program to other needs, goals can not be met. Further, while the first two steps of the program (sustainment and modernization) generally are optimized--they are backed by good planning and management tools--the third step (restoration) uses subjective interpretations of facility conditions to influence resource allocation decisions.

Evidence: The evidence is relatively straight forward. First, funds can be moved easily, making it hard to reach goals. Comparison of the amount of funds budgeted versus the amount spent shows this pattern occurs almost every year. Second, DoD's Installations' Readiness Report yields subjective assessments of the condition of facilities that vary considerably across the military services, but this report is used to allocate resources for restoring facilities. DoD is working to improve its condition reporting system to standardize assessments of facilities. Third, until new management approaches were developed recently, it was difficult to assess whether funds within the program were being spent on day-to-day maintenance or on major repairs of facilities. Now, separate budget categories have been set up so that it will be easier to identify within the program where funds get spent. Tools have been built to track optimum program mix but at this point the system does not always ensure that the right resources get allocated to the right facilities at the right time.

Does the program have a limited number of specific, ambitious long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: "There are four long-term, inter-related goals: 1. Right size and right place. Locate, size, and configure defense facilities to meet the requirements of today's and tomorrow's military force structures. 2. Right quality. Acquire and maintain defense facilities to provide quality living and work environments. 3. Right resources. Leverage resources--money, people, and equipment--to achieve the proper balance between requirements and available funding. 4. Right tools and metrics. Improve facility management and planning by embracing best practices and taking advantage of modern asset-management techniques and performance-assessment metrics. "

Evidence: These goals are published in the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan.

Does the program have a limited number of annual performance goals that demonstrate progress toward achieving the long-term goals?

Explanation: "There are specific objectives and target dates for performance metrics, aligned under the four long-term performance goals. SRM objectives primarily support the ""Right Quality"" long-term goal and indirectly support the ""Right Tools and Metrics"" and ""Right Resources"" goals. (Note: the Facilities Demolition initiative, re-structured as a separate program by the SRM initiative, supports the ""Right Size and Place"" goal and is an element of DoD's facilities strategic plan under the Government Performance and Results Act.)"

Evidence: "Published Defense Planning Guidance includes the following target dates: FY2002: Complete development of the Facilities Recapitalization Metric. (This metric relates planned investments to expected service lives of facilities and is used as a tool to track progress.) FY2004: Achieve full sustainment (full funding of facility day-to-day maintenance needs) levels using the standard benchmarks contained in the Facilities Sustainment Model. (This tool generates an annual funding requirement for keeping facilities in good working order throughout a normal life cycle. It uses standard, auditable benchmarks.) FY2007: Achieve a service-life based recapitalization rate (rate, expressed in years, in which facilities are upgraded substantially, given planned investment spending) using the Facilities Recapitalization Metric. FY2010: Restore readiness to at least C-2 status (i.e., facilities have no significant or major deficiencies that affect DoD's ability to perform its missions), on average, with targeted investments in the near years. "

Do all partners (grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, etc.) support program planning efforts by committing to the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Military service and defense agencies, including the military reserve components, are partners and have been engaged throughout development of the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan, the various SRM/D initiatives, and the performance measuring mechanisms.

Evidence: The Defense Facilities Strategic Plan, the Defense Planning Guidance, the Facilities Sustainment Model, the Facilities Recapitalization Metric, and the performance data collection processes and procedures have each been fully coordinated throughout DoD.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs that share similar goals and objectives?

Explanation: The program collaborates with other programs or agencies on an as needed basis. For example, it shares facilities with other agencies such as the Department of State, which helps reduce redundancy of infrastructure investment across the federal government. Additionally, DoD receives financial contributions from host nations, such as Japan, and other international sources, such as NATO, that reduce the requirement for U.S. investment. The program also collaborates with other organizations to identify better ways to manage facilities.

Evidence: Beyond working out facility-sharing arrangements, DoD has reached out to other government and private sector agencies to share what it has learned about managing facilities and to learn from others. The program manager has corresponded with NASA, DoE, Pacific National Lab, Smithsonian, GAO, and the Federal Facilities Council, for example. In addition, DoD created a Facilities Cost Factor Handbook designed to aid in planning that it has shared widely.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope conducted on a regular basis or as needed to fill gaps in performance information to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness?

Explanation: The program is evaluated yearly in DoD's official "program review" and various elements of the program, such as the Facilities Sustainment Model (a management tool used to identify day-to-day facility maintenance requirements), have been subject to Independent Verification and Validation. The 2002 review produced a revised allocation of resources, and the 2003 review produced new improvements in the Facilities Recapitalization Metric (a management tool that relates planned investments to expected service lives) for use in 2004. Furthermore, many of the cost factors used in the Facilities Sustainment Model have been independently verified by Whitestone Research.

Evidence: DoD's report titled "Facilities Recapitalization Front End Assessment" documents recent work. Unisys Corporation maintains records of its Independent Verification and Validation of the Facilities Sustainment Model and is currently conducting an independent assessment of military service and defense agency business rules for computing Plant Replacement Value, a measure used in determining the rate at which facilities are modernized, restored or replaced.

Is the program budget aligned with the program goals in such a way that the impact of funding, policy, and legislative changes on performance is readily known?

Explanation: The budget structure contained in the Future Years Defense Program has been altered throughout the military services and defense agencies for the express purpose of measuring resources relative to SRM/D goals, and to track execution performance. Specific program elements, or accounting categories, have been created recently to track sustainment, restoration and modernization, and demolition resources separately. This new structure makes it easier to see how funds actually get spent within the program, making it easier to assess how spending relates to the achievement of goals. Additionally, the Defense Programming Data Warehouse has been modified to support the SRM/D program. Budget exhibits and Chief Financial Officers Act formats have also been adjusted.

Evidence: The budget structure is set up to track resources relative to program goals. For example, DoD can track spending against its target of funding one-hundred percent of day-to-day facility maintenance requirements. This funding rate is a key performance measure tied to DoD's goal of providing facilities that meet quality goals--less than one-hundred percent funding can lead to further deterioration of facilities. DoD now has financial management systems set up to track funds from the time they are programmed until they are spent. Recent changes to the Future Years Defense Program "program element" (accounting category) structure are documented in the archives of the Force Structure Management System, maintained by the defense program and analysis directorate, along with changes to the Defense Programming Database and feeder systems. Changes in budget exhibits and formats are maintained in the archives of the comptroller, and in DoD Financial Management Regulations.

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

Explanation: The SRM/D program as well as the overall facilities strategic plan are regularly reviewed and adjusted by the military services and defense agencies in conjunction with the Office of the Secretary of Defense. An Installations Policy Board meets monthly to deal with strategic planning and a Defense Facilities Strategic Plan Working Group is a standing committee under the board. The Installations Policy Board is the organization through which important issues affecting installations and facilities are discussed and key decisions are made. The Facilities Strategic Plan Working Group includes representatives from the engineering, financial-management, resource-planning and programming, and installation-management communities in the military services and defense agencies.

Evidence: The Defense Facilities Working Group crafted the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan highlighted in the Defense Installations Posture Statement for 2001. The plan put a "stake in the ground" for achieving DoD's vision of modern, cost-efficient installations supporting operational readiness. The recent restructuring of this program to support the facilities strategic plan is an example of a change made to address deficiencies. As another example, in order to stem the drain of dollars on unneeded facilities, DoD created a facilities demolition initiative. Demolition of facilities over the period 1998-2000 allowed DoD to realize $185 million in cost avoidance. Additional steps are captured in reviews and activities documented in the following: records of coordination for Defense Planning Guidance; minutes of the Installations Policy Board; and briefings and materials maintained by the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan Working Group.

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: DoD has an established planning, programming, and budgeting system (PPBS) that regularly reviews planning and execution data for this program. DoD also regularly collects information on facilities, such as the condition and capability of facilities to support military missions; a new consolidated inventory listing of all DoD facilities; and updated DoD-wide cost factors, based on private sector standards, for keeping facilities in good working order and for restoring or modernizing facilities. DoD uses some of this data as inputs to its newly developed management tools. The program also uses obligation data provided by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to measure actual obligation of funds against plans. All this information is used to make program resource allocation decisions.

Evidence: "DoD uses its review process to adjust funding regularly. In one recent case, for example, a change in facility inventories revealed during the review process drove up facility day-to-day maintenance requirements, so DoD boosted funding in order to preserve gains recently made in the SRM/D program. Information collection policies, processes and data are either described by or included in the following: 1. Funding: Financial management regulations and related PPBS documentation, including Program Decision Memoranda and Program Budget Decisions, e.g. PBD 809. 2. Facilities: Annual real property inventories, annual Installations Readiness Reports, and inventory forecasts collected for operation of the Facilities Sustainment Model and Facilities Recapitalization Metric."

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Services and Agencies that do not properly sustain, restore or modernize facilities are not held accountable. SRM/D is funded with the same appropriation (Operation and Maintenance) that funds the Department's operations and training programs and base operations, and often the Services use SRM/D funds to finance other, higher priority requirements in these areas.

Evidence: The backlog in restoration has grown since 1987. For the four military services, the backlog started to decline in 2002 due to efforts DoD is taking as part of the Defense Facilities Strategic Plan. However, those gains are likely to be reversed based on current plans for FY03, when the backlog will begin to climb again slightly. Other priorities or short term requirements often displace long term SRM/D program requirements. Over time, these tradeoffs have contributed to an accumulation of inadequate facilities.

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

Explanation: All funds generally are obligated by the end of the year. However, during the year DoD often takes funds away from this program to satisfy other higher-priority needs such as paying immediate bills like military contingency operations and increased protection of people on military installations due to new threats. In addition, because this account/program is considered a "bill payer" within the Department, meaning it has to offer up resources for other pending defense needs, the program often holds back obligating their program monies until there is a determination that those funds will not be needed elsewhere. Sometimes, as a result, some program monies do not get obligated in a timely manner.

Evidence: Evidence is found by comparing budget plans to actual expenditures and in the Defense Finance and Accounting Service reports (DFAS 1002) that reflect movement of funds out of this program to other programs.

Does the program have incentives and procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The military services and defense agencies have some efficiency and effectiveness incentives and procedures in place; however there are no execution-year procedures in place that apply DoD-wide. There are a number of DoD-wide performance targets and IT improvements related to SRM/D for planning, but not execution, as execution in DoD is generally de-centralized for the SRM/D program.

Evidence: While there are no specific DoD-wide execution-year efficiency measures in place, DoD is striving to improve management of the program. It is continuing to implement activity-based costing principles and performance-based metrics. This effort also includes, for example, a consolidated database that houses real property data from all the military services, and a funding requirements generation tool that uses standard costs that can be used consistently by all the military services and defense agencies. In addition, there are some specific efficiency initiatives. For example, DoD is demolishing facilities that it no longer needs to remove forever from the inventory obsolete and excess structures that drain resources. Also, DoD is pursuing ways to optimize the joint use (multi-military service, multi-military component) of facilities as well as ways to jointly procure facilities maintenance and repair services. These efforts are highlighted in budget exhibits and annual reports.

Does the agency estimate and budget for the full annual costs of operating the program (including all administrative costs and allocated overhead) so that program performance changes are identified with changes in funding levels?

Explanation: While DoD estimates the full annual costs of sustaining and recapitalizing facilities, it does not budget for all these costs. DoD continues to under-fund the program in order to fund other higher priority defense programs. Nonetheless, DoD continues to improve its ability to estimate and track the full costs of taking care of facilities. Using recently developed management tools, requirements for routine facilities investment have been standardized throughout DoD based on types of assets on-hand, commercial unit benchmarks, expected service life, and forecasted inventories. Budget and accounting systems have been restructured, improving the ability to track resources programmed for sustainment and recapitalization of facilities. This has given DoD the ability to assess whether investments are adequate to meet program goals.

Evidence: DoD missed its near-term goal in 2004 of fully funding day-to-day maintenance requirements. DoD funded 94 percent of the Facilities Sustainment Model generated requirement in 2004, despite setting a goal in the Defense Planning Guidance of funding the requirement at 100 percent. This under-funding could contribute to further deterioration of facilities, putting at risk the ability of DoD to achieve its long-term goals of bringing facilities up gradually to an acceptable condition. DoD's new management tools help managers assess the impacts of making such funding tradeoffs. Evidence can be found in outputs from the Facilities Sustainment Model and Facilities Recapitalization Metric, and budget exhibits.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Centralized accounting data often is not useful to manage obligations for this program. This is because accounting systems do not always provide timely data, and while funding requirements for this program are generated centrally, obligations are made in a decentralized fashion. However, within that overall context, the SRM/D program has established many accounting improvements, including significant re-structuring of budget categories (discussed above in item II.6) to help track better and control where funds are spent. The program has also re-designed reporting to comply with the Chief Financial Officers Act. There are numerous documented deficiencies in DoD financial management systems overall; DoD is unable to get a clean audit opinion.

Evidence: Financial reporting is often untimely and in the past, provided only limited details for this program. Certified accounting report data generally is not available until thirty to forty-five days after the end of the month in which funds are obligated. Also, accounting reports in the past did not show fully where facilities maintenance funds were being spent. DoD has developed new budget categories in its accounting systems, however, that will make it easier to see where programmed SRM/D funds are being spent. These restructured budget categories are reflected now in: the DoD Future Years Defense Program program management structure; Financial Management Regulations, Vol. 6, Chap 12; DoD Chief Financial Officers Act report, Required Supplemental Stewardship Information, RS-12.

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

Explanation: DoD has improved its planning, but to a lesser extent, its actual implementation. This is because the program is carried out by the military services and defense agencies in a decentralized fashion. The services and agencies, however, have taken some steps to improve SRM/D program management and execution. For instance, the Army is centralizing more of its installation management functions and has issued firmer guidance intended to restrict the movement of SRM/D funds to pay for other programs.

Evidence: One example of an effort that, in part, will address SRM/D program management deficiencies is the Army's Transformation of Installation Management initiative. Transformation of Installation Management is an ongoing business reengineering effort that is intended to streamline headquarters and resources, create more agile and responsive staffs, reduce layers of review and approval, and allow mission commanders to focus on their core warfighting tasks. The Army activated the Installation Management Activity in October 2002, establishing a corporate structure focused on installation management. Its seven regional directorates will oversee the Army's day-to-day installation services, operations, and well-being programs--to include facilities sustainment, restoration and modernization efforts. This organizational structure will establish equitable standards at all Army installations worldwide and improve the delivery of services to commanders, soldiers, and their families.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome goal(s)?

Explanation: "1. Right Size and Place. DoD has gotten rid of a significant amount of obsolete and excess facilities that drain resources. 2. Right Quality. The deterioration of facilities has slowed and facilities are in better working order. 3. Right Resources. Increased funding for the program has improved the condition and quality of facilities. DoD has not met its goal of fully funding day-to-day maintenance (sustainment); however, DoD gradually has increased the percentage of maintenance funding. Also, DoD has boosted recapitalization investments, shortening the cycle between major facility upgrades. 4. Right Tools and Metrics. DoD has improved significantly its information systems, databases, models, and performance-assessment metrics related to the SRM/D program over the past five years. "

Evidence: "1. Right Size and Place. DoD demolished more than 80 million square feet between FY1998 and FY2003. Results are contained in Government Performance Results Act reports. 2. Right Quality. The percentage of facilities having significant or major deficiencies has dropped from 69 percent in 2001 to 68 percent in 2002. 3. Right Resources. Recapitalization investments have reduced the rate at which DoD modernizes, restores or replaces facilities from nearly 200 years to about 128 years; the target is 67 years. 4. Right Tools and Metrics. DoD has developed several management tools as well as a consolidated database that includes real property data from all the military services. "

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

Explanation: "FY2002: DoD completed development of the Facilities Recapitalization Metric, a management tool that relates planned investments to expected facility service lives. FY2004: DoD did not achieve its target of fully funding facility day-to-day maintenance in the 2003 and 2004 budgets. However, DoD did preserve funding improvements made over the recent past. Continued under-funding could harm DoD's ability to achieve its long-term goal of improving the quality of facilities. FY2007: DoD is decreasing gradually the rate, in years, in which facilities are upgraded substantially, on the way to a target of 67 years. FY2010: Useful data is not available yet to determine if the condition of facilities can be improved to meet desired levels by 2010. "

Evidence: "FY2002: The Facilities Recapitalization Metric is described in the Facilities Recapitalization Front End Assessment released late in FY 2002. This management tool will improve the ability to track progress of major facility upgrade efforts. FY2004: Facility day-to-day maintenance funding is programmed at 93 and 94 percent of requirements in 2003 and 2004, respectively. FY2007: The recapitalization rate has dropped from 138 years in 2003 to 128 years in 2004. FY2010: Achieving the desired condition of facilities by 2010 is at risk due to the under-funding of day-to-day maintenance requirements because the under-funding can lead to further deterioration of facilities. "

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

Explanation: DoD lacks Department-wide efficiency and effectiveness measures because the military services and defense agencies implement the program in a decentralized manner. But DoD is making strides to improve its practices to achieve program goals.

Evidence: For example, DoD raised the level of planned facility day-to-day maintenance (sustainment) funding from 84 percent in FY2002 to 93 percent in FY2003 without having to add significant resources. While some increase in funding was necessary, the overall requirement was greatly reduced by the removal of over 60 million square feet during the period FY1998-FY2001 through Base Realignment and Closure and demolition. If execution matches the plan, the higher sustainment levels will slow (though not stop) deterioration and the attendant reduction in expected facility service life, avoiding premature restoration costs in the future. The Army has undertaken a major effort to restructure the way it channels funding to installations (as part of Transformation of Installation Management) which should help establish consistent standards, achieve efficiencies, and help it benefit from economies of scale. Evidence can be found in: testimonies to Congress on the FY2003 budget; Demolition reports filed under GPRA; and budget exhibits and annual reports.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The "SRM/D" model has been presented in several cross-agency settings (and also in settings that include representatives from the private sector); DoD's approach has received favorable comment relative to other approaches in use in the government.

Evidence: Evidence can be found in "Deferred Maintenance Reporting for Federal Facilities: Meeting the Requirements of Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board Standard Number 6, As Amended," Federal Facilities Council Technical Report #141, National Academy Press, 2001.

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

Explanation: Initial evaluations from outside sources, including one from GAO, indicate that the SRM/D construct, plans, goals, and performance metrics can be effective, although the SRM/D program construct itself is too new to have a history of executed results.

Evidence: Evidence is reflected in ongoing GAO evaluations.