Detailed Information on the
National Forest Improvement and Maintenance Assessment

Develop long-term outcome-based performance measures for roads, facilities and trails that cover the full scope of the program, including safety, condition sustainability and environmental suitability, utilization, and mission dependency.

Improve overall facilities, roads and trails data quality and ensure that condition assessment surveys are accurate and drive management decisions regarding the construction, use, maintenance or decommissioning, and disposal of these assets.

Develop and implement a strategy to prioritize road, facility and trail improvements that reflect the Federal Real Property Council tree for investment strategies as a common criteria for setting asset priorities in addressing the deferred maintenance backlog.

Measure: Facilities Condition Index

Explanation:Facilities Condition Index (FCI) is a general measure of the constructed asset's condition. The Forest Service FCI measure comports with Federal Real Property Council guidance and is a calculation incorporating the ratio of deferred maintenance to current replacement value. A higher FCI represents a better asset condition. Improved asset management and maintenance leads to a lower level of repair needs and a lower ratio of repair needs to replacement value, which is reflected in a higher FCI score. The following assets are included in the measure: buildings, recreation site minor constructed features, dams, and water/wastewater systems. Formula: FCI=(1-$Repair Needs/$CRV) x 100

Measure: Percent of administrative facilities maintained to standard

Explanation:The percent of administrative facilities (buildings) whose Facilities Condition Index is at or above the target value; currently the target is an FCI=90%.

Measure: Ratio of facilities deferred maintenance eliminated to annual funding for major facilities projects

Explanation:The ratio of deferred maintenance eliminated to funding amount provides an indication of the efficiency of the Forest Service's use of available resources. By tracking the ratio of deferred maintenance reduced as a function of available maintenance funding, the Forest Service is able to show performance in maintenance on their major facilities projects (>$250K) regarless of the funding level of a given year. This measure is in addition to the Federal Real Property Council's requirement to report annual operating and maintenance costs.

Measure: Miles of highway legal vehicle road maintenance

Explanation:Miles of highway legal vehicle roads (Operational Maintenance Levels 3, 4 and 5) on which at least one physical maintenance activity is performed to applicable standards for that activity during the fiscal year. Completing repetitive maintenance items on the same mileage in a single year results in the mileage being counted only once.

Measure: Cost of capital improvement and maintenance per mile of highway legal vehicle road in good or fair condition

Explanation:This efficiency measure illustrates the programmatic effectiveness of improving and maintaining the National Forest Road System roads intended for highway legal vehicles (Operational Maintenance Levels 3, 4 and 5).

Measure: Miles of trail maintained to standard

Explanation:Miles of National Forest System trail on which at least one maintenance task is performed to applicable standards for that task during the fiscal year. This measure includes annual maintenance and deferred maintenance (repair, replace, decommission).

Measure: Cost per trail mile maintained and improved to standard.

Explanation:Ratio between annual program funding and the number of trail miles maintained and improved that meet trail national quality standards.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program purpose is to improve, maintain, and operate facilities, roads, trails, and associated infrastructure to facilitate recreation, research, fire, administrative, and other uses on Forest Service administered lands.

Evidence: 7 U.S.C. 2250, enacted as Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944. National Forest Roads and Trails Systems Act, 16. U.S.C. 532-538. Annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. Travel Management Rule (36 CFR parts 212 and 261). Annual Forest Service Budget Justifications. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-08.

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

Explanation: The program provides support to the agency mission through management of capital assets related to recreation, fire, research, administrative, and other infrastructure, including approximately 42,000 buildings, 144,000 miles of system trails and 380,000 miles of system roads. The program is currently focused on rightsizing the agency's portfolio of assets, eliminating unneeded or underutilized facilities to reach a sustainable level best supportive of a broad recreation, rural transportation, and trail infrastructure program.

Evidence: 7 U.S.C. 2250, enacted as Department of Agriculture Organic Act of 1944. National Forest Roads and Trails Systems Act, 16. U.S.C. 532-538. Annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts. Travel Management Rule (36 CFR parts 212 and 261). Annual Forest Service Budget Justifications. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-08. Performance Accountability System Set of National Performance Measures, USDA Asset Management Plan, Forest Service Building Block Plan. Recreation Site Facility Master Planning is an example of applying a consistent national process to prioritize recreation sites on each national forest while considering public recreation needs, accounting for costs to operate and maintain a national forest's recreation site portfolio, and addressing deferred maintenance needs. See Facility Master Planning and Recreation Facility Master Planning policy letters from May 2002, March 2005, October 2006, and January 2007.

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

Explanation: No alternative program provides the services the Capital Improvement and Maintenance program currently performs. While other infrastructure programs exist in Federal, State, and local Governments and in the private sector, no other program exists that integrates infrastructure management on a national scale, within the administrative jurisdiction of the Forest Service, and with a requirement for multiple-use resource management. The Forest Service alone is responsible for managing the capital assets on 193 million acres of public lands, providing research facilities for natural resource and social systems management, and providing facilities to support fire management and other state and private programs. The Forest Service guidance provides clear distinctions between transportation system that are the agency's responsibility from those of private owners, state and local government, or other Federal agencies.

Evidence: National Forest Roads and Trails Systems Act, 16. U.S.C. 532-538. 23 USC 101. 23 USC 204. 23 USC 205. Annual Travel Management Rule (36 CFR parts 212 and 261). FSM 7700 - Transportation System. USDA Asset Management Plan and Forest Service Building Block Plan.

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

Explanation: The program has not adopted the Federal Real Property Council tree for investment strategies as a common criteria for setting asset priorities. Further, although Forest Service policies also establish clear lines of authority, responsibilities, and accountability for managing capital assets,the program has not completed facilities master planning and does not use those plans that have been completed when identifying properties as surplus and eligible for disposal.

Evidence: USDA Asset Management Plan Section 2.5.3. Audit Report USDA/OIG-AUDIT No. 08601-02-Hy, Followup on Recommendations Made on the Maintenance of Forest Service's Infrastructure. Forest Service Manual 7310, 7700 & 7710. Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act, Three-Year Disposal List. Annual Program Direction. Facility Master Planning and Recreation Facility Master Planning policy letters from May 2002, March 2005, October 2006, and January 2007. Road Trend Analysis. 36 CFR 212.5b. 36 CFR 212.55

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

Explanation: The program does not have an effective control for ensuring that condition assessment surveys are accurately recorded in its facilities and infrastructure database. Because these surveys are periodic inspections of property, plant, and equipment, the Forest Service is unable to accurately and completely determine their current condition and the estimated cost to correct any deficiencies. Coupled with the program's reliance on nine different regions that customize their project prioritization and selection process rather than a comprehensive national process, the lack of accurate condition surveys leads to instances where funds are not provided to best meet program needs and purposes. While funding for roads is allocated based on beneficiary based factors such as visitor use, land area, and resource activity, trails funding is allocated on the basis of cyclical costs. The program has made strides in allocating facitilities funding based on factors that address utilization, condition index, mission dependence, and annual operation and maintenance to improve the program. In addition, the administrative facilities multi-fund maintenance assessment and conveyance authorities are designed to provide incentives directly focused on improving facility condition index by optimizing space.

Evidence: Audit Report USDA/OIG-AUDIT No. 08601-02-Hy, Followup on Recommendations Made on the Maintenance of Forest Service's Infrastructure. FY 2007 Budget Justification and Allocation methodology. USDA Asset Management Plan, Forest Service Building Block Plan. Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act. Deputy Chief's 7300/1930 October 20, 2006 Request for FY 2008 and FY 2009 Facility Major Project Lists. Appropriation Use Handbook.

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: The program does not have a long-term measures that tracks its performance in the safety, condition sustainability, and environmental suitability of its 144,000-mile trails system or its 380,000-mile roads system. The program has instituted a measure of road quality, but ratings are subjective and would apply to only twenty percent of the total road system. A new outcome measure proposed by the program may provide an indication of how well public access expectations are being met, but it does not address safety, condition sustainability and environmental suitability, and again would apply to only twenty percent of the total road system. For facilities, the Program applies a facility condition index (FCI) measure, commonly used by public agencies and private sector capital asset owners, but a the program is unable to accurately and completely determine the estimated cost to correct any deficiencies, a key element of the measure. Further, the program does not measure utilization or mission dependency as required by Federal Real Property Council guidance.

Evidence: FY 2008 Budget Justification. USDA Real Property Asset Management Plan, FY 2006. Federal Real Property Council Guidance for Improved Asset Management(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/financial/fia/frpc_guidance.pdf). Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 7709.58,10,12.3. Guidelines for Road Maintenance Levels, 0577 1205P. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, 2005. Maintenance Management Systems for Forest Roads: A Summary of Systems To Assist Road Managers, 9377 1203. San Dimas, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, San Dimas Technology and Development Center, 1993. 36 CFR 212.1, Forest Transportation Facility.

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

Explanation: Because the program lacks long-term outcome measures, targets and timeframes are not applicable.

Evidence: PART guidance requires a "No" for Question 2.2 if the answer to Question 2.1 is "No."

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: Although the program does not have specific long-term outcome performance measures that reflect the purpose of the program, annual output measures demonstrate program performance related to facilities, roads and trails by tracking trends in assets and asset conditions. Annual annual measures are comprehensive (i.e, they apply to 100% of the program) while portions of the existing long term measures only apply to 20% of the roads portion of the program. For facilities the annual measure of number and percentage of outdoor recreation facilities maintained to standard and the percent of administrative facilities maintained to standard provide indicators of maintenance conditions over time. For roads, the annual measure of miles of highway legal vehicle road maintenance indicates the amount of asset maintenance conducted and provides a general indication of road condition. The trails measure, miles of trail maintained to standard, also provides an indication of the extent of asset maintenance conducted by the program.

Evidence: Forest Service Program Direction. Forest Service Budget Justification.

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

Explanation: The program has established baselines and targets for most of iits annual measures, but annual output targets for trails decline at a rate faster than available resources. Also, because the program doesn not have a strategy with goals and objectives for addressing the deferred maintenance backlog, the Forest Service cannot indicate annual improvement and realization of efficiencies toward those goals and objectives.

Evidence: FY 2008 Forest Service Budget Justification. Annual Performance and Accountability Report. Annual Forest Service Budget Justification. Annual Forest Service Program Direction. Facility Master Planning and Recreation Facility Master Planning policy letters from May 2002, March 2005, October 2006, and January 2007. Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act.

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: While the program has standard contracts with set goals regarding performance and timelines, there is no evidence that contracts are aligned with program goals. Additionally the program follows Federal Acquisition Regulations, and has a Value Engineering performance requirement for large cost projects. However, contracts are not linked to the program's annual and/or long-term goals of the program.

Evidence: 16 USC 537. 36 CFR 212.5d. Forest Service Manual 7732. 16 USC 535 [3]. 23 USC 205. 36 CFR 212.7. 36 CFR 212.9. Standard Specification Performance Section; FS Manual 7700 Transportation System: Value Engineering clause requirement, Value Analysis requirement. Contracts include basic time and performance requirements, but they do not document how it "ensures that partners support the overall goals of the program and measure and report on their performance as it relates to accomplishing those goals," as called for in the PART guidance.

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: Although the program has undergone several independent evaluations over the past 5 years and continues with implementation of recommendations contained in those reports, these evaluations dealt with components of the program, not its entirety. Accordingly, the evaluations do not meet the scope criteria. Further, they do not meet the frequency criteria because the different program components were evaluated at different and irregular intervals. The Forest Service generally conducts a variety of annual and periodic evaluations to ensure program effectiveness and improvement, but these evaluations do not appear to meet either the independence or scope criteria.

Evidence: Office of Inspector General (OIG) Official Audit Report No. 08601-02-HY, "Follow-up on Recommendations Made on the Maintenance of Forest Service's Infrastructure" June, 2006. Office of Inspector General (OIG) Official Audit Report No. 08001-01-AT, "Implementation of the Capital Improvement Program" November, 2006. USDA Office of Property and Procurement Management (OPPM) quarterly scorecard reviews in conjunction with development and implementation of Asset Management Plan.

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: The Forest Service cannot ensure that the accomplishment information it provides to Congress and other interested parties is consistent, valid, and supported, rendering it largely ineffective in managing Forest Service operations. Also, the Forest Service's Performance and Accountability Report was based on inaccurate, inconsistent, and unverified data, and thus unreliable for making sound decisions. Consequently, resource allocations do not reflect desired performance levels nor are the effects of funding and other policy changes clear. The FS has made some improvements in its planning processes but has not effectively implemented these improvements. Further, because the program is unable to accurately and completely determine their current condition and the estimated cost to correct any deficiencies, the program budget is not tied to actual performance. Program budgets, however, do include both direct and indirect costs.

Evidence: USDA Office of Inspector General Audit Report No. 08601-1-Hy, Forest Service Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, found that standards defining performance vary between regions and national forests and even among the districts within a single national forest. Further, without acceptable long-term measures, it is difficult to see how budgets can be linked to program goals. USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-08; Forest Service FY 2004 - 2008 Budget Justifications. Audit Report USDA/OIG-AUDIT No. 08601-02-Hy, Followup on Recommendations Made on the Maintenance of Forest Service's Infrastructure.

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

Explanation: Although the agency is adopting an asset management approach to program implementation, the Forest Service has not addressed the need for a systematic methodology to identify and use inventory and performance measure data to better target assets for disposal, investment, or other management attention. This is particularly acute in the Forest Service's 388,000-mile road system, which continues to increase in size even as additional decommissioning is required to reduce large deferred maintenance backlogs. The Forest Service does dispose of underutilized and unneeded assets, but fundamental management reforms, including an improved incentives structure, are still required. The Forest Service has demonstated progress in meeting deficiencies through the Recreation Sites Facility Master Planning process, through which the agency identifies prioritized recreation sites nationwide that considered current and future public needs as well as accounting for the current and anticipated costs to operate and maintain these sites to standard.

Evidence: USDA Forest Service Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2004-08. Annual Program Direction. Facility Accomplishment Report from INFRA data, USDA Deferred Maintenance Strategy, Forest Service Building Block Plan. Facility Master Planning and Recreation Facility Master Planning policy letters from May 2002, March 2005, October 2006, and January 2007.

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: The agency is currently using the USDA Asset Management Plan (AMP) and Forest Service Building Block Plan (BBP) as the governing direction and vision for developing alternatives and tradeoffs. Tiered to the Department's AMP, the BBP guides the program's strategic planning in the acqusition, management, and disposition of real property assets. In support of this vision, the Forest Service has implemented a comprehensive process for evaluating tradeoffs, risks, and performance goals for major and significant projects completed in the agency. This process, patterned after OMB's Circular A-11, is entitled "Capital Planning and Investment Control" (CPIC) and applies to all projects included in the multi-year investment plan called the Three-Year Rolling Timeline. The process requires evaluation of alternatives using the Federal Real Property Council's (FRPC) four performance measures. It also provides a common framework for assessing risk, prioritization of projects for funding and other factors that contribute to the mission of agency. Common parameters involved in project selection, performance accountability and continual monitoring are being developed for acquisition strategy, operation and maintenance, and disposal criteria for all assets. Value Management principles are used at the project level to ensure that federal funds are used in the most efficient manner to achieve agency goals and objectives. All projects exceeding $1 million require that a Value Engineering study be performed prior to execution. Through this process, alternatives are developed and compared to the initial proposal using present net worth and tradeoff analyses.

Evidence: OMB Circular A-11 Exhibit 300 Forest Products Laboratory. USDA Asset Management Plan, Forest Service Building Block Plan. USDA Asset Management Implementation Plan, Three-Year Rolling Timeline.

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 Forest Service collects credible performance information through multiple avenues, but has not demonstrated how the agency uses it to manage the program and improve performance. The Forest Service has not shown how it systematically uses asset condition measures to adjust program priorities, allocate resources or take other appropriate management actions. Nor has it provided examples of steps taken to enact improvements cited by a specific evaluation. The Forest Service is developing systems to better track and evaluate progress in asset conditions, but an Office of Inspector General report found the program does not have an effective control for ensuring that condition assessment surveys are accurately recorded in its facilities and infrastructure database.

Evidence: Annual Forest Service Program Direction. Annual Road Accomplishment Report. Annual Bridge Accomplishment Report. Facility Accomplishment Report from INFRA data. Road allocation model. Federal Real Property Profile (FRPP). Audit Report USDA/OIG-AUDIT No. 08601-02-Hy, Followup on Recommendations Made on the Maintenance of Forest Service's Infrastructure. Annual Fee Demonstration Reports to Congress (FY2002) and First Triennial Recreation Fee Report to Congress (2006). Annual Performance and Accountability Report.).

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: Agency directives identify specific managers (line officers) who are accountable for achieving program results. Accountable line officer (Regional Foresters, Forest Supervisors and District Rangers) performance standards and evaluation criteria include requirements in support of national performance measures related to agency strategic goals and objectives and assigned annual performance plan targets. Agency managers are accountable for costs, schedules and performance results in performance evaluations that assess performance under GPRA strategic goals and in the allocation of performance-based project funding as documented in the agency's project planning, budget and performance accountability system. Contractors and concessionaires are held accountable for cost, schedule and performance through specifications and statements of work. These contract and special use documents outline the minimum expectations to which each contract partner will be held accountable.

Evidence: Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7310. FSM 7710. Line Officer Annual Evaluations and Performance Standards. Commercial road user requirements are in FSM 7732, 36 CFR 251.56.

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

Explanation: The report of an independent auditor on the Forest Service's FY 2005 and FY 2006 Financial Statements stated the "USDA Forest Service does not obligate all transactions required by appropriations law" and that Forest Service obligations are understated at any one point in time. The program has not demonstrated how it links partner activities to program goals through performance requirements, such as performance-based service contracts. The Forest Serivce has many partners, including more than volunteers, cooperating associations, and state and local government yet it has not shown how partners measure and report on their performance as it relates to accomplishing program goals. Other systems appear to be functioning well, however. The agency's work planning system allows individual units at all levels to identify funding and link to established performance measures for each project. Program funds are obligated for project specific facility and road construction and maintenance operations. Fund balances are assessed every month and field units are notified when balances are excessive. Some unobligated balances occur in the program due to excessive bids or lack of contractor interest. Fluctuations in raw material and fuel costs force contractor bids beyond available funding.

Evidence: Circular A-123 internal control narratives and control matrix; FY 2007 Program Direction; Audit Report, Forest Service FY 2005 and FY 2006 Financial Statements. Year-end major facility accomplishment report.

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 agency has completed multiple competitive sourcing analyses for the CI&M program resulting in program efficiencies. In FY 2004 and 2005, the Forest Service conducted a Competitive Sourcing standard competition of Roads Maintenance functions in the Pacific Northwest Region. The competition resulted in the award remaining in-house and savings of approximately $1.7 million over a fifteen month period. In addition, the program has completed facility maintenance studies and plans engineering design for future study years. Major projects costing more than $250,000 are evaluated using uniform screening criteria and evaluation factors to evaluate value, effectiveness, and future operations and maintenance costs and must compete against other projects for consideration. Projects with a total cost of more than $1,000,000 are also evaluated through the value analysis (VA) process where the project is reviewed for efficiency, including energy efficiency, cost effectiveness, and cost saving measures. The ratio of deferred maintenance eliminated to funding amount provides an indication of the efficiency of the Forest Service's use of available resources. By tracking the ratio of deferred maintenance reduced as a function of available maintenance funding, the Forest Service is able to show performance in maintenance on their major facilities projects (>$250K) regarless of the funding level of a given year. This measure is in addition to the Federal Real Property Council's requirement to report annual operating and maintenance costs.

Evidence: FY 2006 Value Analysis Report. Deputy Chief's 7300/1930 October 20, 2006 Request for FY 2008 and FY 2009 Facility Major Project Lists. USDA Capital Asset Plan, Forest Service Building Block Plan.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Close collaboration among programs within and external to the Forest Service is critical to program success and contributes to management and resource allocation actions. The program coordinates and collaborates with numerous other Federal, State, local agencies, and private entities to establish and fulfill management performance targets. Cooperative Road Construction and Maintenance Agreement are in place for tens of thousands of miles of roads. The program works closely with the Department of Transportation in the management of the Forest Highway Program, Scenic Byway Program and Aquatic Species Passage. Another example is the agency partnering with the National Park Service as an external advisor to the Development Advisory Board.

Evidence: 16 USC 535, 16 USC 537, and 23 USC 205. National Park Service Development Advisory Board Membership.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program follows the Forest Service's financial management guidelines for committing, obligating, reprogramming, and reconciling appropriated funds. However, an independent auditor's report on the Forest Service's internal control structure over financial reporting identified multiple internal control weaknesses, each of which has a direct relation to the program. The audit further found the Forest Service does not obligate all transactions required by appropriations law and. In addition, the audit found accounting deficiencies related to: unliquidated obligation errors; information that did not adequately reconcile the Statement of Budgetary Resources with the President's Budget; abnormal balances that were not assessed in a timely fashion; accurals were incorrect; timber and non-timber renvenue that were not recorded correctly; and stewardship assets that were improperly reported.

Evidence: FFIS reports and capital asset plans, Audit Report - Forest Service Financial Statements for Fiscal Years 2005 and 2006. FY 2002 (08401-1-FM), FY 2002 and FY 2003 (08401-3-FM), FY 2003 and FY 2004 (08401-4-FM) and FY 2004 and FY 2005 (08401-6-FM) Forest Service Audit Reports from KPMG LLP and reviewed by USDA Office of Inspector General (http://www.usda.gov/oig/rptsauditsfs.htm ). OMB Bulletin No. 06-03. PART guidance states that agency-wide material weaknesses that have a direct relation to the program requires a "No." Guidance further states a program is eligible for a "Yes" only if there are no instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations related to financial management.

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

Explanation: Regional program managers develop review teams composed of regional, national and other state participants to conduct program and financial management reviews. The Forest Service's Washington headquarters conducts regional program and general management reviews with every region on a five-year cycle. The agency has dedicated program management staff for oversight and service delivery functions. Regions conduct periodic (semi-annual or annual) meetings with all field program managers to discuss program management issues and policies. An annual national meeting is held to focus on program management issues and policy options to address them. The Forest Service is also consolidating its information technology services based on the result of winning a Competitive Sourcing contract. The Forest Service has also begun implementation of centralized budget, finance and accounting functions for long-term financial management effectiveness. The Agency is currently identifying practices, procedures, and structures necessary to address programmatic deficiencies through revision of its asset management building block plan. The building block plan is considered a systematic approach for implementing national direction. Recreation facility master plans, a systematic review of programmatic function, will be revised every 5 years and reviewed annually for performance and updates.

Evidence: Management Decision on OIG Audits. Forest Service Building Block Plan, Facility Accomplishment Report from INFRA data. Road Trend Analysis. Accomplishment Reporting Requirements; Albuquerque Budget and Finance Service Center; FY 2008 Budget Justification.

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

Explanation: Standards for maintenance are included in the directives. Performance criteria and quality assurance requirements are included in each contract. Capital Improvement and Maintenance deliverables, performance characteristics, costs, and goals are clearly identified, defined, specified, estimated for cost, administered, and reported. Each facility acquisition project is commenced with a preliminary project analysis (PPA) which evaluates alternatives for meeting the defined programmatic need. Major projects are scrutinized at a more strategic level. Stringent construction certification requirements are in place to assure quality construction administration. Through implementation of the USDA Asset Management Plan, major projects will be validated via the OMB A-11 based Capital Programming and Investment Control (CPIC) process.

Evidence: Forest Service Manual Direction. Forest Service Annual Program Direction. Annual Performance and Accountability Report. Financial Statements. Example contract term limits, quality specifications and performance criteria. National Construction Certification Program.

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

Explanation: The program does not include long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program. The agency is working to improve overall condition and align infrastructure with available resources.

Evidence: PART guidance provides that a program that received a "No" on Question 2.1 must receive a "No" to Question 4.1. Annual Forest Service Program Direction. Annual Forest Service Budget Justification. 36 CFR 212.5b and 36 CFR 212.55. Road Trend Analysis. Facility Accomplishment Report. Facility Master Planning and Recreation Facility Master Planning policy letters from May 2002, March 2005, October 2006, and January 2007. USDA Capital Asset Plan, Forest Service Building Block Plan. Forest Service Facility Realignment and Enhancement Act . FY 2004, 2005 & 2006 road deferred maintenance reports.

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

Explanation: Results of annual performance measures indicate that the Forest Service is achieving many of its annual performance goals, but data quality questions and the subjective evaluation of road conditions lead to uncertainties regarding the extent of annual accomplishments. The annual output measure for administrative facilities maintained to standard has reported a baseline only, so there is no indication of annual performance. Additionally, the recreation sites and trails programs achieve annual performance goals and targets through FS operations, volunteers, concessions, and other partners.

Evidence: Annual Budget Justifications. Annual Performance and Accountability Reports. USDA Office of Inspector General Audit Report No. 08601-1-Hy, Forest Service Implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act. Also, PART guidance states that if the program received a Yes in Question 2.3 and a No in Question 2.4, then the program cannot receive a rating higher than Small Extent.

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

Explanation: The program underwent an OMB Circular A-76 competiton that addressed a key cost and performance drivers. The annual efficiency measure for capital improvement and maintenance per mile of highway has reported a baseline only, so there is no indication of annual performance. Other annual efficiencies targets are typically met or exceeded. Further, the use of volunteers and cooperators, while desirable, provides an indication of their input to program activities compared to the Forest Service's. How the volunteer and cooperator performance actually contributes to the program's continued measurable efficiency improvement over prior years remains unclear.

Evidence: Facility Accomplishment Report from INFRA data. FY 2006 Asset Disposal Report.

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

Explanation: The performance of this program is on par with other programs managing land and/or conducting similar land-disturbing activities as evidenced by comparable PART assessments and reporting of other Federal agency, State and local government, and the private sector. However, cost comparisons with local governmental agencies (state and county) reveal that those agencies with similar purpose and goals provide more resources per mile compared to the Forest Service roads at Maintenance Levels 3, 4, and 5.

Evidence: The Federal Lands Highway Business plans 2001 - 2005, 2003 -2007. Government Transportation Financial Statistics, a publication of the Department of Transportation's Bureau of Transportation Statistics (minor collector, rural).

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

Explanation: The independent evaluations identified in Section II, Question 6 indicate that the program could improve its effectiveness through additional systems and controls to ensure priority accomplishments, timely and accurate information, and to validate accomplishments. Recommendations from these evaluations are being implemented and incorporated into agency policy.

Evidence: Office of Inspector General (OIG) Official Audit Report No. 08601-02-HY, "Follow-up on Recommendations Made on the Maintenance of Forest Service's Infrastructure" June, 2006. Office of Inspector General (OIG) Official Audit Report No. 08001-01-AT, "Implementation of the Capital Improvement Program" November, 2006.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: To date, most program goals including targets assigned have been accomplished within available budget and on schedule. The agency is moving toward a more comprehensive strategy within the context of asset management to more effectively achieve programmatic goals.

Evidence: Road Accomplishment Report. Facility Accomplishment Report from INFRA data. Year End Financial Statements. Major Facility Project List Year-end Status.