Detailed Information on the
Bureau of Reclamation Water Management - Operation and Maintenance Assessment

Work with appropriate principals to amend the Warren Act to facilitate water transfers, which will enable Reclamation to help non-Federal entities to transfer and store water.

Develop a plan to build the capacity of Reclamation customers to take title to Reclamation facilities or accept transferred works (which are owned by Reclamation but operated by the project sponsor).

Develop a comprehensive, long-term strategy to operate, maintain, and rehabilitate Reclamation facilities.

Consider potential steps to clarify any ambiguities in the Reclamation Reform Act.

Evaluate the results of National Academy of Sciences Review of Reclamation's processes ("Organizing to Manage Construction and Infrastructure in the 21st Century Bureau of Reclamation"), and address any recommendations, to the extent such recommendations are applicable and appropriate.

Measure: Average time to correct/mitigate higher priority O&M deficiencies of reserved works facilities.

Explanation:This measure reflects the improved efficiency in addressing important O&M activities. By increasing this efficiency, the facilities are improved earlier, thus potentially avoiding more costly breakdown maintenance or interruptions in water delivery service. By doing so, there would be correlation to a higher degree of reliability (i.e., higher FRR score) of these dams and associated (water) facilities.

Measure: Percentage of Reclamation's total reservoir capacity that is associated with dams having a "fair to good" Facility Reliability Rating (FRR).

Explanation:This measure will provide an indication of the relative impact that the existing "poor" dams have on the overall capacity of water storage provided by these dams. Essentially, it is the ratio of active reservoir storage capacity associated with the "poor" rated dams divided by the total active reservoir storage capacity of all Reclamation reservoirs.

Measure: Percentage of water infrastructure in fair to good condition as measured by the Facilities Reliability Rating.

Explanation:The Facilities Reliablity Rating (FRR) is a score derived from a set of weighted criteria that covers maintenance, operations, and management factors for reserved and transfered high and significant hazard dams and reserved works associated facilities. The score then is correlated to a condition descriptor (good/fair/poor).

Measure: Percentage of facilities (reserved works buildings) (exclusive of FRR facilities) in fair to good condition as measured by the Facility Condition Index.

Explanation:The Facility Condition Index is measured by dividing the current estimated amount of idenfied maintenance needs by the current replacement value of the facility.

Measure: Potential acre-feet of water supply made available through O&M enhacements and innovations.

Explanation:The acre-feet of water to be made available is limited to O&M related activities, including rehabilitations and water conservation or efficiency activites. Does not include water made available through new construction or as covered under other PART evaluations (i.e., rural water supply, Title XVI, etc.)

Measure: Acre-feet of water (measured in million acre-feet) delivered consistent with applicable substantive and procedural requirements of Federal and State water law.

Explanation:The amount of water delivered includes reservoir releases from storage and diversions of natural flows through Reclamation canals or pump. This goal is not directly within Reclamation's control and, therefore, long-term targets cannot be set.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Water Management/Supply-O&M program ensures the operation and maintenance of project features, to deliver water to irrigators and municipal users, and to provide storage to help mitigate flooding (hydropower operations are managed along with other purposes, but that function was assessed in the Hydropower PART). Although a significant portion of this program relates to the accomplishment of direct physical operations and maintenance activities necessary to keep water-related facilities in a reliable condition, Reclamation implements a number of related supporting activities to assure reliable project operations. Such supporting activities include, but are not limited to land management; O&M of desalination features; management, disposal, and/or treatment of irrigation return flows (drainage); water conservation; drought emergency assistance; water quality monitoring; sedimentation studies; and a number of activities performed under pertinent Reclamation-wide Programs. Additionally, repayment of many outstanding financial obligations for water project construction is done through the Operations and Maintenance program.

Evidence: Reclamation Act of 1902 and supplemental authorizations, including individual, project-specific authorizations that determine pertinent project purposes and assign O&M responsibilities to the Secretary of the Interior/Bureau of Reclamation. Program Descriptions for Reclamation-wide Program guidance document, dated October, 2002.

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

Explanation: Reclamation's O&M Program focuses directly on the need to maintain reliable storage and delivery and efficient use of water resources in the Western United States to support existing economies, sustain production of agriculture, provide water for municipal and industrial purposes, and where consistent with other project purposes, flood control. Effective operation and maintance of Reclamation's water infrastructure is critical in order to continue to provide water to meet current and future needs. As its facilities age (the average age of the Bureau's infrastructure is over 50 years), maintaining these facilities will consume more resources. Reclamation's management and oversight of its infrastructure and supporting activities also ensures continued payments of project costs by the water users to the U.S. Treasury and ensures continued payment of O&M costs by beneficiaries, as applicable.

Evidence: Because of population growth in many areas of the West and a continued need for reliable and quality water supplies, the O&M of existing water infrastructure, which continues to age, is critical in meeting this need. Additionally, because of competing and expanding demands for this limited water supply, there are challenging opportunities related to the O&M of this infrastructure.

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

Explanation: Many other federal, state, local, and private entities do similar work, and in fact Reclamation has agreements with many local irrigaiton districts to be responsible for the O&M on various projects. However, this is done in a cooperative fashion, so that there is seldom redundancy or duplication of effort. As stated in project-specific authorizing legislation, Reclamation has been authorized the responsibility to O&M the constructed water infrastructure. To avoid redundancy in the roles and responsibilities related to O&M of certain infrastructure and facilitate more local control, Reclamation has contractually transferred O&M responsibility to non-Federal water user entities. This transfer of O&M responsibility, primarily for authorized single-purpose irrigation facilities (transferred works), requires that the entities be financially responsible for related O&M activities. Minimal oversight/management is provided by Reclamation on these facilities. For most facilities authorized as multi-purpose facilities by Congress (those having two or more authorized purposes), Reclamation has retained the O&M responsibility for these facilities (reserved works) to ensure that all project purposes and committments are properly and legally met. As applicable, per contract requirements, water and power users fund the O&M allocated to reimbursable project purposes on these multi-purpose facilities.

Evidence: Reclamation Act of 1902 and supplemental authorizations, including individual, project-specific authorizations that determine pertinent project authorizations. Existing project-specific water service and O&M contracts with water user entities. Reclamation records indicate that approximately 2/3 of all Reclamation water facilities have been contractually transferred for O&M responsiblity to non-Federal water user entities. Reclamation Manual Directives & Standards FAC 01-05 provides the requirements and procedures in transferring O&M responsiblity of project facilities. Annual Budget Review Committee (BRC) regional notebooks articulate the funding to be provided by non-Federal entities for O&M activities on multi-purpose facilities that Reclamation retains O&M responsibilities for.

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

Explanation: The program has taken many actions over the years to address identified weaknesses, but some actions to address limitations to program effectiveness and efficiency require legislation, and these more often than not have not been implemented, therefore the program has several outstanding flaws that merit a "No". A recent National Research Council report commissioned by Reclamation (in Prepublication draft at the time this assessment was finalized) also identified areas for improvement. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reviews of program elements identified several areas where the program is flawed. Some of these actions were suggestions to Congress, and Congress did not act on them, while others were recommendations for Reclamation action, and Reclamation did not take them. The National Reseach Council report recently identified other challenges. Specific areas that may need improvement include: -- Amend the Warren Act to facilitate water transfers. -- Amend the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 to clarify acre limitations for who receives federally subsidized irrigation water. --Take a series of programmatic actions to facilitate water transfers. --Ability of customers to accept transferred works. --Some customers have financial difficulty with making annual reimbursements for O&M. --A lack of plans to handle transferred works that local project partners did not propertly maintain. --Long-term strategies for O&M are inconsistent throughout Reclamation's five regions.

Evidence: The Reclamation Act of 1902 and supplemental authorizations, including individual, project-specific authorizations that determine pertinent project authorizations. Existing project-specific water service and O&M contracts with water user entities. Annual BRC regional notebooks and work activity plans developed at the area/field office level. Reclamation Manual Directives and Standards FAC 01-04 and FAC 01-07 provide minimum set of requirements in the review of both reserved and transferred works' facilities. GAO/RCED-94-35, May 1994, "Water Transfers: More Efficient Water Use Possible, If Problems Are Addressed"; GAO/RCED-90-6, October 1989, "Water Subsidies: Basic Changes Needed to Avoid Abuse of the 960-Acre Limit"; GAO-02-973, September 2002, "Bureau of Reclamation: Opportunities Exist to Improve Managerial Cost Information and Cost Recovery"; GAO/AIMD-00-127, May 2000,"Bureau of Reclamation: Information on Operations and Maintenance Activities and Costs at Multipurpose Water Projects"; OIG No. W-FL-BOR-012102002, November 2003, "Municipal and Industrial Water Transfers - Bureau of Reclamation: Failure to Implement Water Transfer Process Leaves BOR Unprepared to Faciltiate Transfers"; "Managing Construction and Infrastructure in the 21st Century Bureau of Reclamation", National Research Council, Prepublication Copy, National Academies Press, 2005.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program has many mechanisms in place to ensure that resources are targeted to achieve particular outcomes that are associated with specific Reclamation projects. However, the program has a more fundamental design flaw that indicates it should receive a "No". Specifically, review of the October 1989 GAO report, "Water Subsidies: Basic Changes Needed to Avoid Abuse of the 960-Acre Limit", shows that the GAO identified serious concerns with ambiguities in language in the Reclamation Reform Act that have allowed water users to manipulate loopholes in the law to obtain subsidized water, when the legislative history shows that subsidized water was only intended for certain water users with lands up to 960 acres. The GAO report section on recommendations to the Congress suggested that Congress amend the Reclamation Reform Act of 1982 to clarify acre limitations for who receives federal subsidies for irrigated water. Congress did not take action on the recommendations. Based on this, the resource (subsidized irrigation water) is benefitting people who were not the intended beneficiaries of the law. Reclamation claims that it has not found significant violations of the type the GAO identifies, but the GAO report counters and points out that Reclamation's implementation of the law is such that it will not turn up the type of abuses that are the focus of the report.

Evidence: Project specific authorizing language identifies project purposes, beneficiaries, and service areas. Specific contracts (repayment, O&M, and service) provide detailed services and responsibilities intended for specific beneficiaries. Annual Budget Review Committee (BRC) notebooks and related budget documents provide line-item descriptions of O&M activities to be accomplished for specific projects and programs within Reclamation. GAO/RCED-90-6, October 1989, "Water Subsidies: Basic Changes Needed to Avoid Abuse of the 960-Acre Limit".

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: Reclamation has developed four long-term performance measures focused on the primary outcome of the O&M Program, to ensure reliable delivery of water. These measures target two elements of the program's purpose: actual delivery of water, and the status of the physical infrastructure that makes water delivery possible. The latter is especially important as a management tool as Reclamation addresses the challenges of an aging infrastructure. It is not clear whether the facility condition measures give a transparent assessment of facility condition, or whether Reclamation will use them to priortize budget activities. 1) Percentage of water infrastructure in fair to good condition as measured by the Facilities Reliability Rating. 2) Percentage of water storage capacity that is associated with dams rated in "poor" condition using the Facility Reliability Rating (FRR). 3) Percentage of facilities (reserved works buildings) (exclusive of FRR facilities) in fair to good condition as measured by the Facility Condition Index. By computing the FCI, which is the ratio of the costs of identified maintenance needs to the current replacement value, Reclamation can determine the maintenance condition of these structures. 4) Acre-feet of water (measured in million acre-feet) delivered consistent with applicable substantive and procedural requirements of Federal and State water law. Although Reclamation has minimal control over this measure, which largely depends on weather, it is important to project customers.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan, FRR systems for dams and associated water facilities. Average age of incomplete O&M recommendations criteria included in the FRR systems for dams and associated facilities. DSIS (Dam Safety Information Sytem) used to monitor status of O&M recommendations. Annual dam safety/O&M status reports. FCI computations of reserved works buildings and recreation sites. See measures tab.

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

Explanation: Reclamation has targets for its four proposed long-term measures, although they do not appear to be ambitious. There are serious questions as to constitutes 'ambitious' for a program that is trying to maintain the status quo in some instances; long-term parity may be an acceptable target, but these issues will need to be explored in more depth, as Reclamation fleshes out its long-term strategy for how to address its aging infrastructure. Reclamation has set its targets for the FRR performance measures to maintain the FY2004 baseline percentage of facilities in fair to good condition through FY 05-09. A change in a facility rating from poor to fair/good often requires major maintainence actions or engineering modification, often a long-term process. Corrective actions must be budgeted for years in advance. For the water delivery performance measure, the long-term performance goal is slightly more than the typical annual average. The target is greatly influenced by outside factors such as precipitation, therefore this measure is only minimally useful to help assess program performance. Reclamation has set a long-term target to maintain 87% of its non-FRR facilities (buildings) in fair to good condition as rated through the computation of the FCI values for these facilities. This target represents a maintenance of the current level of the condition of these facilities. The outcome goals to reduce the capacity affected by facilities in poor condition and to increase the water available through O&M enahcements/improvements are under development.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan, FRR systems for dams and associated water facilities. Measures tab.

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: Reclamation has two annual efficiency measures; one of them links directly to achievement of the targets for the long-term measures. 1) Average time to correct/mitigate higher priority O&M deficiencies of reserved works facilities. This measure gauges timeliness in accomplishing identified backlogged maintenance, as well as operation-related improvements. It facilitates progress towards the long-term outcome measures for FRR ratings and capacity affected by poor facilities. 2) Percent increase in Reclamation's cost per acre-foot ($/af) of water delivered to operate and maintain its water storage infrastructure compared to (over) the five-year rolling average. This measure will monitor Reclamation's O&M costs as defined by internal Activity-Based Costing (ABC) allocations, track trends, and identify any significant cost increases. This information will assist managers identifying cost efficiencies, prioritizing work, and planning for ongoing maintenance and major rehabilitation to extend the life of the water infrastructure.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan, FRR systems for dams and associated water facilities. See Measures Tab.

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

Explanation: The program has established a baseline and targets for one of its two annual measures, that dealing with the average time to correct high priority O&M deficiencies. The program is developing a baseline and targets for its other measure, dealing with the cost of operating and maintaining its infrastructure.

Evidence: DOI Strategic Plan, FRR systems for dams and associated water facilities. See Measures Tab.

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: For reserved works facilities, Reclamation has water O&M, repayment, and service contracts with pertinent water users that are used to hold them accountable for payment of the reimbursable irrigation and municipal and industrial (M&I) purposes. In this manner, the payments help support Reclamation's O&M activities that result in continued reliability of the water facilities involved. Water user entities are also involved in Reclamation's program/budget formulation activities and provide input on project-specific O&M activities. Such involvement by the water users, through their funding commitment and work input, contribute to the reliability/condition of project facilities, as measured through the FRR systems, and help to establish the O&M work activities and the amount of required local funding to be provided. For transferred works facilities, nearly all of the funding for direct O&M activities is provided by the water users (operating entities). Reclamation has minimal oversight and management responsibility on these facilities. One of the most visible activities performed by Reclamation is the routine facility O&M reviews/site examinations conducted (which the water users participate in) to assure that the transferred works' facilities are being adequately operated and maintained, and that the operating entity is meeting its responsibilities as outlined in O&M agreements and contracts. Formal, documented O&M recommendations are provided to the operating entities and tracked until their completion. The accomplishment of these recommendations by the operating entity is a sign of their commitment in ensuring the reliability of these transferred works, thus reflected in the FRR scores for these facilities. Additionally, through the attendance of water users at Reclamation's annual Water Management Workshop and the technical O&M information provided them, there is joint commitment by Reclamation and the water users to properly operate and maintain and ensure the reliability of Reclamation facilities. Partners also attend Reclamation's classroom and on-site dam operator training to learn about O&M requirements and procedures outlined in appropriate Standing Operating Procedures.

Evidence: O&M agreements and water service contracts.

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: Reclamation conducts period internal reviews, which although useful are generally of limited scope and do not meet the criteria for independence. GAO and OIG reviews are independent but vary widely in scope, and are not conducted periodically. However, reviews have been conducted often (by both the GAO and OIG) over at least the past 15 years. Reclamation conducts independent, technical O&M field reviews (contracted with the Technical Service Center) of specific project facilities on a regular, ongoing basis. Other reviews are conducted by personnel that are a minimum of one office higher in the Reclamation office hierarchy than the O&M activity level. While useful, these reviews do not meet the criteria for independence. Furthermore, a corporate O&M Team, which serves as the OM&R Workgroup for the annual Budget Review Committee (BRC) provides an independent overview of program formulation related to O&M activities by virtue of it being comprised of personnel from all regions. The BRC itself also provides for a similar overview of the program activities on an annual basis. This also does not meet the criteria for independence. In addition, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits are conducted routinely of O&M activities and costing practices to ensure consistent processes and to see that improvements are implemented for program effectiveness. These meet the criteria for independence and quality, but it is uncertain whether they meet the criteria for periodic reviews or scope. A recent Alternative Management Control Review (AMCR) was also conducted on the Review of O&M Program to identify any material or non-material weaknessess in program implementation and effectiveness. Currently in Prepublication draft is a study by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences to independently evaluate and assess Reclamation's organizational structure in effectively accomplishing its mission-related programs and activities, one of which is the mission of water delivery and related management/supply.The evaluation is of sufficient scope, independence, and quality to merit a 'yes'.

Evidence: Comprehensive and periodic facility review reports; RO&M examination reports; OM&R Workgroup reports to the BRC; BRC Reports; AMCR analysis and summary report; GAO and OIG Reports; "Managing Construction and Infrastructure in the 21st Century Bureau of Reclamation", National Research Council, Prepublication Copy, 2005.

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: There is a general connection between budget requests and Reclamation's broad goals of maintaining its infrastructure and delivering water. However, it is difficult to impossible to make a connection between funding levels for particular activities and achieving program goals. Recent attempts to link program funding to recently-developed performance measures on facility condition showed that the connection bertween the two is tenuous at best.

Evidence: Budget request/justification, BRC budget notebooks, DOI Strategic Plan

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

Explanation: Reclamation has recently developed performance measures that link to the program's outcomes, and has or is establishing baselines and targets for these measures. Primarily because of its progress in this area, the program merits a 'yes'. Prior to FY 03, Reclamation tracked a significant number of output-oriented GPRA goals related to specific O&M activities. As a result of OMB and DOI comments that program goals did not focus on intended outcomes, Reclamation replaced its output goals with two comprehensive outcome-oriented goals, one for dams and one for associated water facilities. The program has established baseline data and future targets for these outcomes. Reclamation is also proposing a new measure to track the variability in operation and maintenance costs of its water storage infrastructure, a significant issue to managers and stakeholders alike. Progress has also been made to show linkages between the budget requests and performance outcomes and strategies, but that linkage is not firmly in place nor transparent.

Evidence: Past and current GPRA goals and DOI strategic plan performance measures.

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: Reclamation has processes in place to evaluate the efficacy and efficiency of different alternatives for infrastructure improvements at its facilities. Reclamation utilizes several analytical activities to evaluate alternatives to guide which O&M-related activities are ultimately undertaken. These evaluations are performed annually because of the potential to impact water users from both an operational and cost standpoint. One activity used to evaluate the cost of certain significant RAX (replacements, additions, and extraordinary maintenance) items is through the use of the Value Engineering Analysis process by which alternative solutions and their relative costs are evaluated and a recommended solution is determined. Another activity by which the cost, schedule, and risk are evaluated is through each of the regions' RAX prioritization process. Through this process, criteria are used to prioritize the RAX items for potential inclusion as line items in the program/budget to be evaluated under Reclamation's BRC (Budget Review Committee). Under the BRC process, the priorities of the included RAX items are scrutinized further during the OM&R Workgroup discussions and ultimately by the BRC itself.

Evidence: Value Engineering Analysis process; regional RAX prioritization criteria; BRC process and guidelines.

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: The costs of operating and maintaining its water infrastructure directly impacts Reclamation's customers. Because of the focus Reclamation's constituents have on these costs, Reclamation collects an array of information to help it effectively and efficiently manage its infrastructure. Reclamation annually collects and reports data on the completion of O&M recommendations and the status of other O&M criteria from operating entities on transferred O&M dams. O&M information on all dams is compiled and evaluated at annual meetings with pertinent field personnel. Data and information are also used in the computation of the FRR scoring and assignment of a reliability descriptor (good/fair/poor) for each applicable facility. Additionally, Reclamation also collects instrumentation data on its dams and other significant structures from its field offices and operating entities on a set schedule to analyze the performance of its facilities. The collection of the data is monitored and a quarterly deficiency report is produced to indicate any missing or late data. This information is then used as part of the criteria within the FRR scoring. Reclamation also collects and maintains financial data from water users regarding their share of reimbursable project-specific O&M costs, which are documented within the regional BRC notebooks and the annual Budget Justifications.

Evidence: Formal OM&R and facility review reports, including O&M recommendations; O&M recommendation completion and scheduling status within computerized tracking information system; annual status reports; FRR system scoring results; L-23 schedule for reporting of instrumentation data. Instrumentation Data Quarterly Deficiency Report. Regional BRC notebooks and annual Budget Justifications.

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: Starting in FY 2003, each SES manager was required to include at least one GPRA goal and specific program/project objectives in their performance standards. Elements necessary for program accomplishment are also included in Reclamation employee performance agreements. In addition, Reclamation will be implementing the DOI effort to include at least one GPRA goal or a related performance measure that ties to the strategic plan in every employee's performance agreement. Also, where water users share in the O&M costs of Reclamation-operated facilities, there are requirements for involving water users/contractors in O&M program formulation and related budgets/project costs. In these situations, through specific contract language (per Reclamation Law, Section 6, 1939 Act), the water users are held accountable for their share of the costs and a schedule by which payments are to be received. If payment is not received, Reclamation has the authority, by contract, to withhold water delivery to these water users (however, it is unlikely that Reclamation would take such an action). The recent National Research Council study suggests that especially smaller water districts have financial difficulty in making these payments on an annual basis. For transferred works' facilities, contract language with the operating entities stipulates the O&M performance expected by Reclamation. Should the operating entity not fulfill the expectations by Reclamation, Reclamation has the authority, by contract, to perform necessary O&M and backcharge the operating entity, or reassume (take back) O&M responsibility for the affected facilities.

Evidence: SES performance standards and Reclamation Manual Policy WTR P05.

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

Explanation: Overall, Reclamation obligates about 98% of its funds, based on a two-year outlay rate. Reclamation reports actual expenditures and obligations in its annual reports. Reclamation has limited discretion in how it expends appropriated funds or funds provided by the water users for specific O&M purposes. In general, funds must be used for their intended purposes, as agreed with the water users and approved within budget documents for project-specific work (e.g., line items describing specific O&M work to be performed.) Reclamation has a narrow window of opportunity (time) to implement related O&M activities and is successful in executing its budgeted resources within these constraints. However, some program expenditures may require modifications to ensure necessary O&M work is accomplished within the above constraints.

Evidence: Periodic and year-end spending reports (annual financial 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: The program has procedures to promote efficiency and effectiveness. It has established a baseline and targets for one of its measures (time to correct identified O&M deficiencies), but not for the other (cost to operate and maintain infrastructure). For significant O&M activities (i.e., large RAX items), Reclamation typically uses a competitive bid process to achieve cost effectiveness in contracting out and implementing the work. For some of these significant O&M activities, as well, Reclamation uses a Value Engineering analysis process to evaluate alternatives in determining which is the most cost effective to implement. Reclamation has also achieved cost efficiencies through the implementation of various maintenence management systems (computerized and paper) to allow for more efficient planning and tracking of O&M activities and work orders. Cost efficiencies have also been achieved through the automation of data gathering from various performance instrumentation at our facilities. Additionally, as an incentive, performance standards for key staff reflect requirements to meet certain GPRA goals for the program. To achieve cost effectiveness in Reclamation's overall O&M program, the established BRC process is used to ensure that work activities are appropriately prioritized such that funding is dedicated to the higher-priority items. By doing so, the more critical items are addressed, thus avoiding facility/equipment failures or interruptions in water service, which could have significant economic impacts, and thus potentially increased costs to Reclamation.

Evidence: OM&R Workgroup Report to the BRC; Value Engineering analysis process; various performance standards.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Reclamation coordinates and collaborates with many federal, state, and local entities, as well as project beneficiaries, to ensure continued water storage/supply, delivery, and management. These include other federal agencies such as the U.S. Army, Corps of Engeeiners, state water management agencies, and individual water districts.

Evidence: Interagency MOUs and agreements, contracts with water users for O&M, annual operating plans, river compacts, and treaties.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Reclamation does a reasonably good job of tracking debt owed to the federal government from project beneficiaries. It has also taken numerous steps over the past 15 years to address deficiencies identified from outside reviews. There are some individual projects where certain reimbursable project costs are not being collected, or where information on repayment status is unavailable. There are also instances where financial arrangements with other federal entities, such as the Western Area Power Administration, are opaque. The Federal Finance Accounting system is used to track expenditures against each project on a monthly basis, and more frequently when necessary. Tracking includes auditing categories of expenditures to ensure consistency with project intent. As appropriate, every contract has a financial plan supervised by the COTR (Contracting Officer's Technical Representative) and the Contracting Officer. The COTR certifies that the information is accurate and timely. The CFO (Chief Financial Officer) assures that Reclamation systems meet all legal and financial requirements.

Evidence: Strong program financial management practices are fully documented in an Independent Auditors' Report on Reclamation's Financial Statements for FY 2003 and FY 2002 (December 8, 2003 Memorandum from the OIG to Reclamation). Reclamation employs a cadre of program/budget analysts who monitor expenditures, obligations, and both physical and financial program accomplishment. GAO-02-973, September 2002, "Bureau of Reclamation: Opportunities Exist to Improve Managerial Cost Information and Cost Recovery"; GAO/AIMD-00-127, May 2000, "Bureau of Reclamation: Information on Operations and Maintenance Activities and Costs at Multipurpose Water Projects". OIG Report No. W-IN-BOR-0016-2004, "Central Valley Project Contract Renewal Process".

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

Explanation: The program has a process in place to addressing identified management deficiencies, although in some instances it may take many years for it to do so. However, a review of over 10 years of evidence shows that it does address the preponderance of identified weaknesses and takes recommended actions. The Facilities O&M Team (and OM&R Workgroup) analyzes various O&M management issues/deficiencies and recommends actions for resolution to promote consistency, effectiveness, and efficiency across Reclamation. Management deficiencies are often identified in audits conducted by the the OIG (Office of the Inspector General) or GAO (Government Accountability Office), or internally through AMCRs (Alternative Management Control Reviews). As a result, specific recommendations are documented in these audits and reviews for implementation by Reclamation. Through the implementation of these recommendations, Reclamation has improved its program effectiveness through better consistency and application.

Evidence: Facilities O&M Team Charter; O&M Team meeting notes; OM&R Workgroup report to BRC; IOG and GAO audits; AMCR reviews/reports.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: This program has a performance measure that targets the amount of water to be delivered by Reclamation annually. In addition, each individual project has a clearly defined water delivery amount, based on contract provisions. However, the Bureau has little influence over whether it is able to meet its water delivery targets, which largely depend on whether conditions. Although it is a clearly defined deliverable, it is only minimally useful as a management tool. Various reports are submitted on a regular basis to indicate the management of O&M actions being taken on water-related facilities. Cost and scheduling information are documented for the O&M recommendations that are contained in our computerized information tracking system. This information is the basis for prioritization of the work activities, as well as providing data for inclusion for certain line items to be evaluated and further prioritized within the BRC process. Advanced funding is received annually from certain water users, to supplement Reclamation appropriations, for specific O&M purposes and activities. For some facilities, the use of computerized maintenance management systems (i.e., MAXIMO) is integral in monitoring and tracking the scheduling/cost of O&M activities to be accomplished at a particular facility. Through the use of reports and data generated by these systems, management can more effectively and efficiently plan and utilize the resources available to accomplish needed O&M activities.

Evidence: O&M and water delivery contracts. Deferred maintenance reporting; FRRs; annual summary report of O&M recommendations within DSIS; CFR and PFR reports; RO&M examination reports; annual site inspection checklists; reports on delinquency of instrumentation readings. MAXIMO business practices (draft).

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

Explanation: Reclamation has demonstrated a long-term commitment to operating and maintaining its facilities. The program has performance information for some measures, but for others baselines are still under development, so it would not be appropriate to give a ranking higher than 'Large Extent'. Also, the challenges of an aging infrastructure lead to long-term targets that do not appear ambitious, because they are static in perpetuity. The rationale for this is that with an aging infrastructure, maintaining the status quo is ambitious. For the purposes of this evaluation that is sufficient for now, but additional evaluation and discussion is necessary to clarify Reclamation's long-term strategy for maintaining this infrastructure long-term. In almost all cases, Reclamation's O&M program activities have demonstrated good performance. There have been minimal disruptions in water service due to unscheduled outages, and costly breakdown maintenance has been avoided. Additionally, almost all repayment obligations are being met. Prior to FY 03, Reclamation tracked and reported a significant number of output-oriented GPRA goals related to specific O&M activities, including completion of PFR/CFR and other exams, completion of Emergency Action Plans, completion of O&M recommendations, and updating of Standing Operating Procedures and most often met or exceeded its goals. Since FY 03, Reclamation has measured a Facility Reliability Rating (FRR) of its high- and significant-hazard dams and associated water facilities. The long-term target of these program goals are to maintain the percentage of Good and Fair rated facilities as established in the baseline rating. The outcomes goals are relatively new so there has only been two fiscal years to track the FRR goal. Thus far, Reclamation has maintained its baseline of 97% facilities in good/fair condition. Reclamation generally meets its other outcome goal to deliver water, but this measure, as previously noted, largely depends on factors outside of Reclamation's control, such as the weather. Reclamation must still set baseline data and track results on the newly proposed outcome goals to measure percent of water storage capacity attributed to poor dams (as rated by FRRs) and increase potential acre-feet of water made available through O&M enahncements and improvements.

Evidence: FY 2003 DOI Performance and Accountability Report and related reported goal data

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

Explanation: Because the program has new annual measures and does not yet have baselines and goals for all of them, it cannot demonstrate progress toward these goals. The program does have a history of achieving goals for its previous measures. Prior to FY03 Reclamation tracked a significant number of annual, output-oriented GPRA goals related to specific O&M activities, including completion of PFR/CFR and other exams, completion of Emergency Action Plans, completion of O&M recommendations, and updating of Standing Operating Procedures. In most cases, the program met its annual performance targets. Since FY 03, Reclamation has measured a Facility Reliability Rating (FRR) of its dams and associated water facilities on an annual basis. Both the annual and long-term targets for these program goals are to maintain the percentage of Good and Fair rated facilities as established in the baseline rating. The annual goals are relatively new so there has only been two fiscal years to track the FRR goal. Thus far, Reclamation has maintained its baseline of 97% facilities in good/fair condition.

Evidence: FY 2003 DOI Performance and Accountability Report and related reported goal data

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

Explanation: The program has measures in place to encourage cost efficiencies and effectiveness. However, the new efficiency measures do not have enough baseline data to be able to demonstrate improved efficiencies. The program has consistently been within budget and has been excellent at meeting contractual water deliveries. Interruptions in water delivery service have been kept to a minimum as a result of cost effective preventive measures. Improved efficiencies in the program can be demonstrated through Value Engineering analyses results and through our proposed measure to shorten the time it takes to correct/mitigate higher priority O&M deficiencies. This is also reflected in a lowered amount of backlogged maintenance being reported the last 3 years. The MAXIMO systems and implementation of Interior's ABC cost accounting system should aid with demonstrating improved efficiencies.

Evidence: Ongoing VE annual reporting and future reporting under the ABC process will be used to demonstrate cost efficiencies.

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

Explanation: Certain portions of the program have been benchmarked with other agencies. These efforts have benchmarked well pumping costs and the costs of certain resource management activities, and have shown Reclamation to be comparable to other agencies involved. As a whole, though, comparisons would be extremely expensive and difficult on a program or project level due to significant variation in project and program size and scope of activities. Also, the program activities are focused on resolving issues that are interstate, sometimes international, and frequently characterized by conflict. Therefore, comparisons can only be made on a specific activity or in general terms regarding how Reclamation conducts its activities. It should also be noted that some Reclamation O&M activities are being funded partially by water user organizations who compare their costs against proposed Reclamation costs. Some of these organizations have their own engineering staffs/capabilities. Therefore, there is a constant evaluation of Reclamation's proposed O&M expenditures and activities.The National Research Council study noted that some project partners complain that Reclamation's costs are excessive.

Evidence: Reclamation uses the latest technologies, standards, practices to ensure that it is compares favorably with activities that would be conducted by A/E firms, States, or other governmental agencies. These technologies include: electronic diagnostics of materials and equipment; predictive and reliability-based maintenance; state-of-the art automation systems for operations; and state-of-the-art repair and maintenance materials. We also encourage memberships in technical and professional societies and technical workshops to ensure that staff is familiar with new and effective O&M technologies. Contracts are used to obtain A/E assistance when workload and schedules cannot be met using Reclamation staffing. Evaluation of these costs indicates that they are comparable to Reclamation TSC costs for similiar level staff activities.

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

Explanation: There has been a wide array of program evaluations, including a history of evaluations by the GAO and Interior's Inspector General. These generally demonstrate that the program is effective and achieving results. In most instances Reclamation has followed up on implementing recommendations. The National Research Council study found that the program was mostly effective, particularly at its technical challenges, but that the program was not as effective at addressing complex social challenges such as are increasingly seen in water-short areas. Internal evaluations indicate some effectiveness, although these are generally of insufficient scope and quality.

Evidence: Comprehensive and periodic facility review reports; RO&M examination reports; OM&R Workgroup reports to the BRC; BRC Reports; GAO reprots; DOI Inspector General reports; "Managing Construction and Infrastructure in the 21st Century Bureau of Reclamation", National Research Council, Prepublication copy, 2005.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Program goals have been generally achieved for the FRR performance measures and the water delivery performance measure. Reclamation is currently establishing baselines for the remainder of the goals. It is not clear what long-term budgeted costs are for O&M activities, because there is no particular level of funding associated with achieving a particular status (for instance, FRR score) for its facilities.

Evidence: FRRs for dams and associated water facilities.